UC-NRLF 


$B    725    fil2 


REESE  LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

1    UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


gFK'i'g^gr'affyl'' 


LETTERS 


UPON     THh 


ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS, 


ADDHESSKb  TU 


HON.  JOHN   QUINCY   ADAMS, 


L>P:L::iSALLY      PUBLISHED 


IN  THh:  B.)Sro.\  ATLAS 


UNDER    THE    SIGNATURE    OF 


LISLE 


BOSTON: 

WHITE,  LEWIS  &  POTTER,  PRINTERS. 

1845. 


LETTERS 


UPON   THE 


ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS, 


ADDRESSED  TO 


HON.  JOHN  QUINCY  ADAMS, 


AS    ORIGINALLY    PUBLISHED 


IN  THE  BOSTON  ATLAS 


UNDER  THE  SIGNATURE  OP 

LISLE. 

Qe^rcre.     5.^1  wr^a  ii»«i     EH(^ 

H 

OF  THE 

OF  /  { 

BOSTON: 

WHITE,  LEWIS  &  POTTER,  PRINTERS. 

1845. 


i^:eese 


l^PiJ'^^S 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  passage  of  the  joint  resolutions  by  Congress,  appears 
to  have  engendered  a  general  apathy  among  the  opponents^ 
of  Annexation.  Why  is  it  so  7  So  far  as  the  actual  consum- 
mation of  the  act  is  concerned,  we  are  as  far  from  it  now  as 
we  were  prior  to  their  passage.  But  the  first  act  of  the 
eventful  drama  has  as  yet  been  performed, — the  second  may 
awaken  the  people  to  sober  reflection.  Political  impulses 
may  for  a  time  warp  the  judgment  of  the  mass,  but  they  will- 
ever  carry  with  them  the  elements  of  their  own  dissolution. 
With  all  the  appliances  of  party,  with  forces  flushed  by 
recent  triumphs  and  spurred  onward  by  the  spoils  of  victory, 
our  opponents  have  been  forced  into  conditional  and  guarded 
propositions.  Before  the  subject  is  again  presented  to  Con- 
gress, the  fnry  of  party  will  have  exhausted  itself  in  the 
disgusting  struggle  for  office,  and  the  people  will  begin  to 
calculate  the  value  of  the  Union,  and  the  paltry  prize  for 
which  it  is  to  be  jeopardized. 

Keep  but  the  subject  before  the  people  in  its  practical  bear- 
ing upon  the  present  and  future  welfare  of  the  country — strip 
it  of  its  party  trappings — let  it  descend  from  the  forum  and 
gain  a  hearing  at  the  domestic  fireside,  and  a  joint  resolution 
will  be  echoed  from  every  hill  and  valley  to  support  the 
Constitution,  and  maintain  the,  national  faith  and  honor. 


211985 


These  Letters  have  no  other  recommendation  than  their 
practical  bearing  upon  the  question.  Still  I  feel  that  the 
homely  garb  in  which  they  are  presented,  will  give  them 
additional  weight  with  the  people.  Should  they  be  the  hum- 
ble instrument  of  presenting  materials  for  other  and  abler 
hands  to  use,  or  awaken  the  public  mind  to  the  perils  involved 
in  the  question,  I  shall  be  amply  compensated  for  my  labor. 

LISLE. 


ANNEXATION  OF  TEXAS 


LETTER   I. 

December  19,  1844. 
To  THE  Hon.  John  Quincy  Adams  : 

Sir : — The  result  of  the  late  Presidential  election  has  made  the 
admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union  a  matter  of  probable  occurrence. 
The  manner  and  conditions  are,  fortunately,  yet  undetermined. 
Their  discussion  in  Congress,  will  become  a  matter  of  deep  interest 
to  men  of  all  parties — for,  in  the  mind  of  every  enlightened  American, 
there  is  involved  in  the  measure  consequences  of  vital  bearing  upon 
the  union  and  stability  of  these  States.  I  shall  offer  no  apology  for 
the  liberty  I  have  taken,  in  addressing  this  series  of  letters  to  you  ;  for 
I  feel  that  none  will  be  required.  The  commanding  position  you 
have  assumed  on  this  question,  has,  if  possible,  added  to  your  fame  as 
a  far-seeing  statesman,  and  to  your  reputation  as  a  patriot  and  a  man. 
No  subject  was  ever  presented  to  this  people,  of  such  fearful  im- 
portance as  this;  nor  one  that  has  demanded  a  more  careful  and 
deliberate  consideration ;  and  yet,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  none 
was  ever  so  little  understood,  or  involved  in  such  mystery  and  doubt. 
Indeed,  I  may  go  further,  and  say  that  there  never  was  a  subject 
offered  for  national  investigation,  under  which  such  gross  misrepre- 
sentation and  deception  have  been  practiced.  Under  these  im- 
pressions, I  cannot  doubt  that  any  information  on  this  all-absorbing 
question  will  be  favorably  received,  frotn  whatever  source  it  may  be 
derived,  or  however  humble  may  be  the  garb  in  which  it  is  presented. 
^It  is  my  intention,  in  these  letters,  to  present  to  the  public  a  con- 
densed statement  of  the  conditions  under  which  the  early  emigrants 
to  Texas  settled  ;  the  character  of  their  titles  to  the  land  they  occu- 
pied ;  the  extent  of  the  guarantees  given  by  the  Mexican  government ; 
the  extent  of  the  grants  made  by  Mexico,  and  the  state  of  Coahuila 
and  Texas  ;  the  present  validity  of  those  grants ;  the  extent  of  the 


6 

grants  already  made  by  Texas ;  to  what  extent  the  old  grants  of 
Mexico,  and  Coahuila  and  Texas,  have  been  confirmed  by  the 
govemmtuit  of  Texas;  the  actual  boundary  of  Texas;  the  quantity 
and  value  of  the  lands  that  would  be  realized  by  our  government 
by  annexation  ;  who  are  the  holders  of  ihe  Mexican  and  Texian 
land  scrip;  and  the  origin  of  the  project.  In  the  examination  of 
these  several  points,  will  necessarily  be  included  the  political  and 
g(M)graphical  position  of  Texas  ;  her  ability  to  sustain  herself  as  an 
independent  natio.i;  and  the  danger  of  her  engaging  in  foreign 
alliances,  prejudicial  to  the  safety  and  commercial  prosperity  of  the 
United  States. 

If  the  subject  were  one  upon  which  the  means  of  investigation 
were  open  to  the  public,  I  should  not  for  a  moment,  presume  that 
it  was  ia  my  power  to  throw  any  new  light  upon  it.  But  when  I 
reflect  that  all  the  information,  thus  far  exhibited,  has  been  upon  one 
side ;  that,  blinded  by  the  influence  of  party,  a  majority  of  our 
population  have  determined,  at  whatever  cost,  right  or  wrong,  to 
possess  that  fertile  and  inviting  portion  of  our  continent,  1  feel  it  to 
be  a  duty  which  I  owe  to  my  country,  to  present  the  subject,  as  far 
as  my  abilities  will  permit,  in  its  true  light,  and  leave  the  decision 
to  a  people,  who,  however  rashly  they  may  act  in  the  furtherance  of 
party  purposes,  will  not,  in  cool  deliberation,  sanction  acts  derogatory 
to  the  national  character,  and  injurious  to  the  public  interest.  I  may 
be  asked  why  the  means  of  investigation  are  so  limited,  on  this 
\  particular  subject;  and  why  our  public  men  have  shown  themselves 
so  deficient  of  information  on  a  question  of  such  great  weight  ^  I 
answer  that  such  is  the  peculiar  position  of  both  Mexico  and  Texas, 
in  regard  to  the  publication  of  Journals,  and  works  on  Law  and 
Statistics,  that  but  few  have  ever  been  produced  by  their  presses,  and 
those  of  the  most  imperfect  character. 

The  newspapers  of  those  countries,  particularly  those  of  Mexico, 
are  seldom  received  in  the  United  States — and  their  contents,  ex- 
cepting the  local  news,  are  rarely  republished.  Independent  of 
the  fact,  that  the  most  important  documents  upon  this  question,  are 
in  the  Spanish  language,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  prior  to  the 
agitation  of  this  question,  they  were  of  no  possible  interest  to  our 
citizens;  and  previously  to  the  revolution  of  Texas,  were  considered 
of  minor  importance  even  by  Mexico  herself.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  surprise  that  the  existing  relations 
of  Mexico  and  Texas,  and  the  true  position  of  their  public  lands, 
should,  in  fact,  be  a  sealed  book  to  our  most  intelligent  and  en- 
lightened slat.^smen. 

These  letters  will  be  presented  under  an  anonymous  form,  for 
many  reasons  which  it  would  not  interest  the  public  to  know.  The 
desire  of  avoiding  personal  responsibility,  is  not,  however,  connected 
with  them.  Could  my  name,  in  my  own  opinion,  give  them  additional 
weight,  I  should  unhesitatingly  aflSx  it.  Among  my  personal  friends, 
the  author  will  be  easily  recognized  ;  and,  as  1  seek  no  other  remu- 


Deration  for  my  labors  than  to  be  the  humble  instrument  of  a  public 
good,  the  being  publicly  known,  is  a  consideration  I  would  sedulously 
avoid.  If  these  letters,  as  they  are  from  time  to  time  presented  in 
this  paper,  should  not  carry  in  themselves  intrinsic  evidence  of  their 
truth  and  candor,  they  can  assume  no  additional  value  from  any 
name,  however  elevated.  With  this  exposition  of  my  feelings  and 
views,  1  shall  proceed  at  once  to  the  subject;  asking  of  you,  sir,  and 
the  public,  that  the  imperfect  manner  in  which  I  may  present  it,  may 
be  overlooked,  in  the  importance  of  the  matter. 


LETTER  II, 

December  21. 

Sir : — In  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  Mr.  Calhoun  with  our 
representatives  in  Mexico,  and  the  notes  of  Mr.  Shannon  to  the 
Mexican  Secretary  of  Foreign  Affairs,  that  government  is  accused 
of  having  invited  emigration  to  the  country,  for  the  purpose  of  defence 
against  the  frontier  Indians — and  of  subsequently  driving  the  colonists 
into  a  revolution  by  oppression.  The  question  as  to  the  right,  or 
justific"ation,  of  Texas,  in  her  revolt  against  the  central  government^ 
'of  Mexico,  has  been,  for  all  national  purposes,  settled  by  her  success. 
The  atrocious  system  of  warfare  avowed  by  Mexico,  in  her  attempted 
subjugation  of  Texas,  has  proved  to  the  world,  that  as  a  nation,  she" 
is  totally  unfit  to  govern  a  colony  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  With 
such  a  people,  we,  as  an  enlightened  nation,  can  have  no  sympathy. 
Still,  degraded  and  despicable  as  she  is,  we  are  bound,  in  our  inter- 
course with  her,  to  regard  her  as  an  independent  nation — with  rights 
as  such,  which  we,  as  a  stronger  power,  cannot  honorably  invade. 
The  fact  of  her  inviting  emigration,  is  one  of  considerable  importance 
to  a  proper  understanding  of  her  claims  on  Texas.  If  it  should 
appear  that  she  never  contemplated,  or  authorized,  such  a  class  of 
colonists  as  eventually  settled  in  Texas — and  that,  upon  the  discovery 
of  the  evil,  she  used  all  the  means  at  her  command  to  stop  such 
emigration — and  that  the  use  of  such  means  was  the  origin  of  the 
oppressive  acts  which  drove  Texas  into  revolt,  although  it  would  not 
affect  the  position  of  Texas,  in  the  present  question,  as  an  independent 
nation,  still  it  would  go  far  to  justify  Mexico  in  the  strong  language 
she  has  used,  in  her  diplomatic  intercourse  with  the  United  States. 

To  a  correct  understanding  of  this  subject,  it  is  necessary  to  refer 
to  the  colonization  laws  of  Mexico.  The  first  law  was  promulgated 
by  Augustin  the  1st,  (the  famous  and  unfortunate  Iturbide.)  After 
proclaiming  the  necessity  of  a  general  colonization  law  for  the 
empire,  the  first  article  declares — "  The  government  of  the  Mexican 
nation  will  protect  the   liberty,  property,  and   civil   rights   of  all 


8 

• 

foreigners  who  profess  the  Roman  Catholic  apostolic  religion,  the 
established  religion  of  the  empire."  By  the  16ih  article,  it  is  made 
the  duty  of  the  government  to  provide  the  colonists  with  religious 
instruction.  By  the  national  colonization  law  of  1824,  all  emigrants 
were  sworn  to  support  the  then  existing  constitution  and  laws,  which 
declared  the  Catholic  religion  the  only  religion  of  the  State,  and  all 
others  as  prohibited.  The  same  law,  article  4th,  prohibited  any 
colonization  of  lands  within  twenty  leagues  of  the  boundary  of  any 
foreign  nation,  or  within  ten  leagues  of  the  coasts.  By  the  coloni- 
zation laws  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  (decreed  in  1825,)  under  which 
a  vast  majority  of  the  land  titles  of  Texas  were  issued,  the  same  ~ 
provisions  are  made.     Article  3d  reads  as  follows : 

"  The  Ayuntamiento,  in  such  case,  shall  administer  to  him  (the  emigrant) 
the  oath  which  he  must  take  to  obey  the  Federal  and  State  Constitutions,  and 
observe  the  religion  which  the  former  prescribes — and  consider  him  from  that 
time,  and  not  before,  as  domiciliated." 

From  the  continual  infringement  of  the  above  provisions,  by  the 
introduction  of  Protestant  families,  as  early  as  1827,  the  State  of 
Coahuila  and  Texas  issued  instructions  to  the  Commisioners  of  Land, 
in  the  following  strong  language  : 

"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  scrupulously  to  examine  the 
certificates,  or  recommendations,  which  foreign  emigrants  must  produce  from 
the  local  authorities  of  the  place  where  they  removed  from,  accrediting  their 
Christianity^  morality,  and  steady  habits — without  which  requisite  they  shall 
not  be  admitted  into  the  colony. ^^ 

By  the  above  provisions  it  will  be  distinctly  seen,  that  no  invitation*' 
was  ever  given  by  Mexico,  except  to  Catholic  emigrants — and  that 
the  introduction  of  Protestant  families  was  expressly  prohibited.  In 
the  enactment  of  the  general  law  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  Texas  had 
a  voice,  by  her  elected  delegates.  No  decided  opposition  was  ever 
made  by  her  representatives,  to  such  provisions — from  the  fact, 
^probably,  that  the  imbecility  of  Mexico  would  not  permit  their  en- 
forcement. As  no  act  could  be  legally  performed  unless  the  indi-^ 
vidual  was  an  acknowledged  Catholic,  the  most  shameful  profanation 
of  religious  ordinances  was  permitted.  Marriage  ceremonies  were 
performed,  a  dozen  at  a  time  ;  crowds  baptized  at  once,  at  a  trifle 
per  head  ;  and  the  sacrament  partaken,  as  a  matter  of  frolic.  Instead 
of  none  but  Catholics  being  admitted  into  the  Colony,  no  Catholics 
could  gain  admission  into  the  Protestant  Colonies ;  or,  if  admitted, 
their  position  soon  became  so  uncomfortable  as  to  compel  them  to 
emigrate  to  other  sections  of  the  country. 

This  state  of  thirjgs  was  early  seen  by  the  General  Government 
of  Mexico;  and  active  measures  were  taken  to  suppress  the  evil. 
The  Law  of  Congress,  prohibiting  the  settlement  of  lands  within 
twenty  leagues  of  tile  United  States,  and  ten  leagues  of  the  coast, 
without  permission  of  the  General  Government,  had  been  evaded, 
and  considered  as  a  dead  letter  by  the  Colonists.  It  was  in  the* 
attempts  made  by  the  Mexican  Government,  to  epforce  the  law*, 


9 

which  the  Colonists  had  sworn  to  support,  that  the  first  opposition  to 
Mexico  exhibited  itself.  There  is  a  Law  of  Coahuila  and  Texas, 
passed  March,  1825,  authorizing  the  sale  of  public  lands,  at  auction, 
in  which  the  following  clause  occurs  : 

Art.  10th,     No  person  shall  be  molested  for  political  and  religious  opini^i8,^i{*w' 
•provided  he  shall  not  disturb  the  public  order.  ^^  uM*''^^H|^/St"^^ 

This  is,  I  believe,  the  only  instance,  in  the  legislation  of  any  of 
the  States  of  Mexico,  in  which  a  law  has  been  passed  tolerating 
Protestants.  Unfortunately  for  the  Texians,  this  law  was  declared 
unconstitutional,  and  vetoed  by  the  National  Congress.  Up  to  the«< 
period  (1835)  of  the  subversion  of  the  Constitution  of  1824,  by  Santa 
Anna,  the  efforts  of  the  Mexican  Government  were  unceasingly  di- 
rected to  the  restoration  of  law  and  order,  in  the  department  of  Texas. 
*The  restless  Protestant  spirit  of  the  Colonists,  however,  could  not  be 
bent  to  Catholic  rule.  Every  effort  of  the  General  Government,  to 
maintain  the  authority  of  the  legitimate  laws  of  the  colony,  served 
but  to  exasperate,  more  and  more,  the  population.  Up  to  this  period," 
the  conduct  of  the  Texians  can  only  be  defended,  on  the  principle  of 
the  right  of  self  defence  against  the  proscription  of  Catholic  intol- 
erance. But  for  the  overthrow  of  the  Constitution  of  1824,  and  the 
natural  right  she  possessed,  as  an  independent  State,  to  resist  the 
usurpation  of  Santa  Anna,  the  world  could  not  have  justified  her  in 
her  revolutionary  struggle  for  independence. 

I  have  gone  thus  at  some  length  into  the  question — Did  Mexico 
invite  the  colonists  into  Texas.? — to  show,  that  whatever  may  have" 
been  her  political  sins,  she  cannot  justly  be  charged  with  the  treachery 
urged  upon  her  by  our  Executive.  Her  national  colonization  laws 
were  general,  and  had  no  exclusive  reference  to  Texas.  Protestants 
were  expressly  excluded  from  a  participation  in  them  ; — and,  to  this 
day,  in  the  other  States  of  the  confederacy,  they  are  excluded.  That 
the  influx  of  Protestants  into  a  part  of  her  territory  has  lost  to  her 
the  fairest  part  of  the  Republic  is  her  misfortune,  not  her  crime. 


LETTER   III. 

December  26. 

In  my  last  letter,  I  think  I  demonstrated  from  the  colonization  laws 
of  Mexico,  that  she  never  invited  Protestant  emigrants  to  her  terri- 
tory— and  that  no  Protestant  could  acquire  a  legdl  title  to  land  under 
the  laws  she  had  enacted.  When  it  is  recollected  how  large  a  major- 
ity of  the  present  holders  of  her  land  titles  are  not  only  not  Catholics, 
but  have  never  even  gone  through  the  forms  required  by  the  law,  a 
2 


ib 

question  tvill  naturally  arise,  could  the  titles  derived  from  Mexico, 
and  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  be  maintained  in  the  Courts  ofV 
the  United  States,  should  Texas  be  annexed  ?  It  is  to  be  presumed 
that  our  Courts  would  rule,  that,  where  the  original  conditions  of  the 
grants  had  not  been  fulfilled,  the  grants  would  be  void.  It  is  a  wfeU- 
known  fact,  that,  excepting  Austin's  old  Colony,  on  the  Brasses,  and 
some  of  the  military  grants,  not  one  colonist  in  ten  has  complied  with 
the  conditions  of  the  law ;  and  of  the  immense  amount  of  floating 
titles  now  in  the  hands  of  speculators,  not  one  in  one  hundred  could 
be  sustained  under  the  Mexican  laws.  If  the  rules  laid  down  in  the 
decisions  upon  the  validity  of  Spanish  tides,  in  Florida,  and  French 
and  Spanish  titles  in  Louisiana,  should  be  applied  to  the  Mexican 
titles,  now  in  the  hands  of  Protestants  and  non-residents,  many,  who^ 
are  now  dreaming  of  realizing  thousands  from  annexation,  will  find*' 
themselves  sadly  disappointed.  In  the  discussion  of  this  subject, 
however,  I  shall  take  the  position  that  all  the  grants  made  are  legal, 
irresj)ective  of  religious  tests;  and,  where  those  grants  have  been 
contested  by  the  Government  of  Texas,  show,  as  clearly  as  possible, 
the  grounds  upon  which  they  have  been  contested. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  explain,  in  a  concise  manner,  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  Land  Titles  of  Mexico  and  Texas.  Previously  to  the 
revolution  of  Mexico,  Moses  Austin  obtained  of  the  Spanish  authori- 
ties the  privilege  of  establishing  a  colony  of  Catholics  in  Texas.  He 
was,  however,  prevented  from  carrying  his  plans  into  execution,  by 
death.  Subsequently  to  his  death,  his  son,  S.  F.  Austin,  applied  to 
the  then  new  Empire  of  Mexico  for  a  confirmation  of  the  privilege 
formerly  granted  to  his  father.  It  was  confirmed  by  the  existing 
authorities — and  a  settlement  of  three  hundred  families  located  on 
the  Brassos  River.  The  proceedings  of  Gen.  Austin  were  confirmed 
by  the  General  Government,  and  the  title  of  the  settlers  made  abso- 
lute, fee  simple.  These  are  the  only  titles  of  the  kind  in  Texas, 
derived  from  Mexico.  A  National  Law  was  passed,  in  August,  1824 
— from  which,  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the  subject,  it  is  necessary 
to  make  the  following  translated  extracts : 

Art.  1.  The  Mexican  nation  offers  to  foreigners,  who  come  to  establish 
thetnselves  within  its  territory,  security  for  their  persons  and  property,  pro- 
vided they  siil)ject  themselves  to  the  laws  of  the  country. 

Art.  3.  For  tiiis  purpose  the  Legislatures  of  all  the  States  will,  as  soon  as 
possihie,  form  colonization  laws,  or  regulations  for  their  respective  States, 
conforming  themselves,  in  all  things,  to  the  constitutional  act,  general  consti- 
tution, and  the  regulations  established  in  this  law. 

Art.  12.  It  shall  not  be  permitted  to  unite  in  the  same  hands  with  the 
right  of  property,  ntore  than  one  league  square  of  land,  suitable  f«)r  irrigation, 
four  square  leagues  in  superfices,  of  arable  land,  without  the  facilities  of  irriga- 
tion, and  six  square  leagues  in  superfices  of  grazing  land. 


shall 


Art.  15.     No  person,  who,  by  virtue  of  this  law,  acquires  a  title  to  lands, 
all  hold  them,  if  he  is  domiciliated  out  of  the  limits  uf  the  Republic. 


'^.    Under  the  powers  granted  by  the  above,  the  State  of  Coahuila  and 
Texas  proceeded  to  enact  a  Colonization  Law,  confining  tiie  privilege 


11 

to  Catholics,  as  shown  in  Letter  No.  2,  restricting  the  approach  to  the 
sea-coast,  and  to  the  boundary  of  the  United  States,  and  confining 
themselves  to  the  restrictions  of  the  national  law.  Under  its  provis- 
ions. Undertakers,  or  Empressarios,  were  allowed  certain  limits,  whijh 
are  marked  out  on  the  old  maps  of  Texas  as  grants — within  which 
they  were  at  liberty  to  introduce  the  number  of  families  for  which 
they  might  have  contracted  ;  the  term  of  six  years  being  allowed  for 
the  completion  of  the  contract.  The  time,  however,  was,  in  many 
cases,  extended  by  the  State.  For  the  introduction  of  one  hundred 
families,  they  were  allowed  five  sitios  and  five  labors  of  land;  and 
the  same  for  each  hundred  up  to  eight  hundred — above  which  num- 
ber, no  Empressario  was  allowed  a  premium.  Each  family,  or  single 
man,  upon  locating  in  the  country,  and  complying  with  the  law,  was 
entitled  to  a  given  quantity  of  land,  varying  from  one  labor,  (177 
acres)  to  a  sitio  or  league,  4428  acres.  As  an  acknowledgment  to 
the  State,  they  were  to  pay  "  for  each  sitio,  thirty  dollars;  for  each 
labor,  two  dollars  fifty  cents,  without  the  facility  of  irrigation ;  and 
three  and  a  half  dollars  for  each  one  that  can  be  irrigated."  The  full 
payments  were  not  to  be  made  until  six  years  after  settlement,  and  in 
instalments  of  four,  five  and  six  years.  The  titles  of  all  settlers  to  be 
considered  renounced,  and  the  land  taken  possession  of  by  the  Gov- 
ernment, if  not  cultivated,  or  settled  upon  within  six  years  from  the 
grant.  The  emigrant  had  liberty  to  leave  the  country,  and  sell  his 
land,  if  he  thouaht  proper  so  to  do — the  purchaser,  however,  was 
required  to  fulfil  the  conditions  under  which  the  original  grantee 
received  it.  Empressario  contracts  were  made  for  even  hundreds  of 
families,  no  premium  being  allowed  for  any  less  number  than  one 
hundred,  nor  for  an  excess,  unless  they  amounted  to  another  hundred. 
The  title  of  a  settler  was  not,  however,  vitiated  by  the  non-fulfilment 
of  the  Empressario's  contract.  Some  of  the  contracts  expired,  by 
limitation,  before  the  declaration  of  independence  by  Texas.     Others 

.j  ,we-re  in  force ;  but  the  position  of  the  country,  and  the  legislation  of 

„the  existing  government,  stopped  emigration  under  them. 

J  Under  each  of  the  grants,  or  Empressario  contracts,  more  or  less 
families  were  settled.  Forms  were  established  by  the  government, 
through  which  the  emigrant  must  pass,  before  receiving  a  full  title. 

J  These  forms  embraced  so  long  a  period  of  time,  that  but  few  titles 

*■.  were  confirmed  by  the  State,  prior  to  the  declaration  of  independence. 
One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  government  of  Texas  was,  to  close  the 
land  offices,  and  to  require  all  sums  due  the  government  of  Coahuila 

,  and  Texas,  as  ta*xes  or  land  dues,  to  be  paid  to  the  government  of 
Texas — exonerating  her  citizens  from  all  liability  to  the  Mexican 
authorities.  The  only  evidence  of  title  received  by  the  emigrant  was 
the  Empressario's  certificates,  certified  by  the  local  authorities — and 
an  order  for  a  survey,  or  a  certified  copy  of  the  survey,  when  made. 
.Under  these  contracts,  an  immense  number  of  spurious  titles  were 

,;issued — of  which,  and  of  other  special  grants  made  by  the  States  of 

, -Mexico,  I  will  speak  in  my  next  letter.         , 


1^ 


LETTER  IV. 

December  28. 


Sir: — I  closed  my  last  letter  with  the  promise  to  designate  other 
grants  that  had  been  made  by  Mexico,  and  the  State  of  Coahuila  and 
Texas,  and  to  point  out  the  immense  number  of  fraudulent  land'' 
claims  that  had  been  manufactured  in  the  Texas  speculation.  The 
extraordinary  haste  with  which  this  question  is  being  pressed  before 
Congress,  and  the  evident  determination  of  the  leaders  of  the  Loco 
Foco  party  to  force  the  measure,  whatever  may  be  the  ultimate 
consequences,  admonishes  me  of  the  necessity  of  passing  lightly  over 
the  minor  points,  and  proceeding,  at  once,  to  the  weighty  matters 
involved  in  the  question.  It  appears  to  me  that  there  is  a  premeditated 
determination,  both  with  the  Government  and  its  party  leaders,  to* 
stifle,  if  possible,  all  investigation — obtain  the  annexation,  at  whatever 
cost — and  leave  the  people  to  reflect,  at  their  leisure,  on  the  con- 
sequences of  rash  and  hasty  legislation.  It  is  my  intention  to  dispel, 
if  possible,  the  more  than  Egyptian  darkness  that  now  hangs  over  the 
subject — and  enable  the  people  at  large,  as  well  as  their  represen- 
tatives, to  raise  a  warning  voice. 

In  1823,  a  grant  was  decreed  by  the  states  of  Texas  and  Coahuila, 
Tamaulipas  and  Chihuahua,  to  Brad  bourn  and  Staples,  for  the  ex- 
clusive navigation,  by  steam,  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and  the  privilege 
of  locating  upon  all  the  vacant  lands  on  either  side  of  the  River. 
This  grant  was  confirmed  by  the  Federal  Government  for  the  term 
of  fifteen  years.  A  sail  vessel,  of  a  light  draft,  was  fitted  with  a 
steam  engine,  in  New  York,  in  1830,  and  sent  out  under  the  com- 
mand of  Capt.  Henry  Austin.  The  river  was  ascended,  with  great 
difficulty,  at  a  high  stage  of  water,  about  700  miles.  The  navigation 
was  found  to  be  impracticable  for  a  boat  of  any  size,  and  ihe  project 
was  abandoned.  The  projectors,  however,  secured  their  claim  by 
the  experiment — and  now  hold  it  as  good  against  the  Mexican 
Government.  Of  this  river,  as  the  Treaty  boundary  of  Texas,  I  shall 
speak  more  fully  hereafter. 

From  time  to  time,  since  1824,  the  Federal  Government,  and  that  of 
Coahuila  and  Texas,  have  made  many  military  grants  (so  called)  for 
services  rendered  the  State.  They  vary  from  three  to  eleven  leagues 
each.  The  papers  certifying  these  grants  were,  in  almost  every 
case,  copies  of  the  originals  deposited  among  the  archives  of  the 
district  in  which  the  land  was  located,  or  where  it  was  intended  to  be 
located.     This  opened  a  channel  for  the  most  extensive  frauds.  *^ 

Duplicate  copies  of  these  titles  to  grants  could  be  obtained,  to  any 
extent,  by  paying  for  the  labor  of  writing  them  off*.  Individuals  had 
but  to  purchase  an  original  title,  and  they  could  obtain  as  many 
copies  to  speculate  upon  as  they  might  wish.  A  profitable  trade  has 
been,  for  years,  carried  on,  in  the  southern  a'fid  western  States,  in 


13 

this  new  spebidk  of  merchandise;  and  there  are  probably  thousands, 
in  the  south  and  west,  who,  during  the  last  political  campaign,  were 
hugging  these  fancied  slices  of  the  El  Dorado,  and  hurraing  for  Polk 
and  Texas.  The  facility  with  which  an  emigrant's  papers  could  be 
obtained,  under  the  Empressario  contracts,  and  the  ready  sale  their 
spurious  titles  met  with,  in  the  United  States,  drew  a  host  of  specu- 
lators into  the  business.  Persons  were  hired  at  Natchez,  and  other 
places  on  the  Mississippi,  and  also  at  New  Orleans,  to  proceed  to 
Texas,  take  the  oath  of  intention  to  locate,  obtain  a  title,  and  then 
return.  These  titles,  thus  fraudulently  obtained,  could  not  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  genuine, — and  their  character  can  only  be 
eventually  known,  when  the  unfortunate  purchaser  attempts  to  take 
possession  of  his  land.  I  have  previously  shown  that  a  title  could 
only  be  valid,  when  the  emigrant  had  located  upon,  and  improved 
the  soil.  An  injmense  number  of  these  false  head  rights  have  been 
sold  in  this  country,  and  are  now  distributed  through  almost  every 
State  in  the  Union.  In  addition  to  these,  there  are  supposed  to  be 
fifty  millions  of  acres  in  worthless  titles,  issued  by  the  El  Dorado 
company,  Galveston  bay  and  Texas  land  company,  the  Arkansas 
and  Texas  land  association,  and  the  Colorado  and  Red  River  com- 
pany. The  certificates  of  land  stock,  of  some  of  these  companies, 
have  been  sold  at  auction  in  New  York,  and  elsewhere,  to  an  immense 
amount.  For  some  years,  agents  were  employed  to  traverse  the 
Western  States,  and  sell  their  worthless  paper  at  a  cent,  and  even 
less,  for  the  acre.  Millions  of  it  are  now  in  the  hands  of  our  western^ 
mechanics  and  farmers  who  firmly  believe  that,  if  Texas  is  annexed, 
they  can  sell  the  trash  that  has  been  palmed  off  upon  them,  at  two  or 
three  dollars  the  acre.  I  have  little  doubt  that,  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  at  least  one-tenth  of  the  voters  are  directly  or  indirectly  in- 
terested in  this  scrip — and  that  it  exists  in  large  quantities  in  all  the 
middle  and  eastern  States.  But  a  word  of  explanation  is  here  nec- 
essary, to  show  the  reader  why  the  scrip  is,  as  I  have  represented  it. 
If  the  reader  will  turn  to  my  third  letter,  he  will  there  find  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  Empressario  grants  or  contracts.  These  land  companies 
having  purchased  of  the  Empressarios  the  right  of  locating  families 
upon  their  grants,  and  of  receiving  the  commission  of  five  per  cent, 
allowed  by  the  government  for  actual  settlers,  have  assumed  the  title 
to  the  land  mfee  simple^  and  issued  scrip  purporting  to  give  an  actual 
title  to  land,  for  which  they  have  never  paid  one  cent,  or  fulfilled  a 
single  condition  named  in  the  original  grant.  These  titles  may  be 
known,  by  being  in  decimal  numbers  of  acres,  such  as,  100,  500, 
1000,  &c.  No  titles  of  such  even  numbers  of  acres  have  ever  been 
issued  by  the  States  of  Mexico  or  by  Texas. 

When  it  is  borne  in  mind   that  this  immense  number  of  spurious 
titles,  spread  over  the  country,  are  over  and  above  the  bona  fide*' 
titles  actually  acknowledged  by  the  Texian  Government,  some  faint 
estimate  may  be  formed  of  the  immense  infltience  their  possession 


14 

has  had  upon  the  late  Presidential  election.  By  official  returns,  made 
under  the  direction  of  the  Congress  of  Texas,  in  1838,  it  appears 
that  the  then  existing  land  claims,  of  which  the  titles  were  good, 
amounted  to  about  forty-five  millions  of  acres.  Since  that  period 
other  titles  have  been  brought  forward,  and  extensive  grants  have 
been  made  by  the  Government.  The  exact  amount,  in  acres,  of  the 
valid  grants  that  have  been  made,  since  1821,  cannot  clearly  be 
ascertained  from  the  records  of  the  land  offices.  The  situation  of 
the  country,  and  the  careless  manner  in  which  the  books  have  been 
kept,  forbid  anything  like  an  accurate  estimate.  It  is,  however, 
somewhere  between  sixty  and  seventy  millions  of  acres.  Of  this 
immense  amount  of  land  claims,  good  and  bad,  seven-eighths  are 
held  by  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Estimating  these  seven-eighths 
to  be  equal  to  one  hundred  millions  of  acres,  let  us,  for  a  moment, 
pause  to  contemplate  the  strange  spectacle  it  presents.  The  charac- 
ters of  the  several  titles  are  not  known  by  the  holders — nor  can  they 
be  known,  in  most  cases,  without  a  long  and  expensive  investigation. 
The  holders,  of  course,  believe  them  good.  The  price  of  much 
inferior  land,  in  the  West,  is  from  one  to  two  dollars  per  acre.  We 
will,  for  illustration,  set  the  value  at  one  dollar.  Here  we  have  a 
direct  bribe,  operating  upon  the  ballot  box,  of  one  hundred  millions 
of  dollars.  Upon  the  election  of  a  particular  candidate  for  the 
presidency,  depends  the  annexation  of  Texas.  Upon  that  annexation 
depends  the  value  or  worlhlessness  of  the  property  held.  Can  it,  for 
a  moment,  be  doubted,  taking  human  nature  as  we  every  where  find 
it,  that  it  would  positively  and  directly  control  the  votes  of  the  several 
holders. 

Had  human  ingenuity  been  taxed  to  its  utmost  stretch,  to  devise  a 
scheme  that  should  insure  the  election  of  a  particular  candidate  to  the 
presidency,  by  indirect  bribery  and  corruption,  none  could  have  been 
devised,  more  secret  in  its  workings,  or  more  certain  in  its  results. 
None,  where  the  power  that  controlled  the  will  of  the  voter  could  so 
effectually  operate,  unseen  and  unsuspected.  To  what  extent  it  has 
influenced  the  popular  vote,  can  never  be  known.  Still,  I  think  that 
no  true  friend  of  his  country— no  advocate  of  the  purity  of  the  ballot 
box — can  follow  me  through  these  hasty  and  imperfect  letters,  with- 
'out  acknowledging  that  James  K.  Polk  owes  his  election  to  the 
influence  of  Texas  Scrip. 

But  I  have  said  enough  on  this  point.  It  was  and  is  my  intention, 
in  these  letters,  to  confine  myself  to  documents  and  facts,  and  leave 
the  more  difficult  task  of  illustrating  them,  to  abler  and  more  in- 
fluential hands — reserving  to  myself  the  privilege  of  explaining, 
hereafter,  more  fully,  the  points  hastily  touched  upon,  should  the 
discussion  in  Congress   be  continued  longer  than  is  now  probable. 

Beyond  the  grants  I  have  already  spoken  of,  there  are  others  of 
immense  amount,  which  have  been  repudiated  by  Texas — which, 
should  the  Treaty  laid  before  the  Senate  be  ratified,  would,  in  my 


15 

opinion,  be  binding  upon  the  United  States.  Of  those,  and  the 
question  of  Boundary,  1  will  speak  in  my  next,  and  show,  as  I  think 
I  can,  that,  in  case  of  annexation,  the  United  States  would  not  realise 
a  league  of  land,  that  would  be  available  for  sales  for  at  least  a 
century  to  come. 


"'  LETTER  V. 

January  2,  1845. 

Sir  : — By  a  decree  of  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  dated  April 
19th,  1834,  Ihe  Governor  is  authorized  to  dispose  of  four  hundred 
sitios  of  the  public  land,  to  meet  the  expenses  attendant  upon  calling, 
out  the  militia  to  defend  the  State  against  the  Indians.  The  decree 
recites  the  imminent  peril  in  which  the  lives  and  property  of  the  citi- 
zens were  placed,  by  the  incursions  of  the  savages.  By  an  act  of 
March  26th,  1834,  it  is  decreed,  that  the  vacant  lands  of  the  State 
shall  be  sold  at  auction,  under  certain  restrictions,  and  allowing  Prot- 
estants to  be  purchasers.  By  a  decree  of  23d  of  April,  it  is  provided 
that  "after  the  lands  are  once  exposed  at  public  sale,  with  all  the 
formalities  provided  in  the  law  of  March  last,  should  there  be  no  offer 
as  high  as  the  minimum  price  therein  specified,  they  shall  be  open 
for  any  person  to  purchase  them  at  said  price,  without  the  necessity 
of  again  opening  the  auction.'"  A  decree  of  14th  of  March,  1835, 
has  the  following  provisions  :  Art.  1.  "The  Executive,  for  attending 
to  the  present  public  exigences  of  the  State,  may  dispose  of  the  vacant 
lands  thereof,  to  the  amount  of  four  hundred  sitios."  Art.  2.  "He- 
shall  regulate  the  colonization  of  said  lands  on  the  basis  and  condi- 
tions  he  shall  judge  proper,  without  subjection  to  the  provisions  of  the 
law  of  the  26th  of  March,  of  the  last  year."  All  these  decrees,  it 
will  be  borne  in  mind,  were  passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  State, 
while  the  Department  of  Texas  was  fully  represented  in  that  body; 
she  standing,  in  regard  to  the  whole  State,  in  almost  precisely  the 
same  situation  that  Maine  stood  to  Massachusetts,  prior  to  her  admis- 
sion into  the  Union.  No  protest  having  been  made  by  the  represen- 
tatives of  Texas  against  the  decrees,  nor  against  any  executive  action 
under  them,  until  after  her  declaration  of  Independence.  To  meet 
the  expenses  attendant  upon  the  defence  of  the  State  against  the 
Indians,  and  pay  the  troops  called  out  in  the  numerous  Pronuncia- 
memtos  of  that  period,  the  Executive,  under  the  above  provisions, 
made  a  sale  to  John  T.  Mason  and  others,  of  eleven  hundred  leagues 
of  land,  for  which  the  contracted  price  was  paid  to  the  government, 
it  being,  in  fact,  the  only  land  for  which  the  government  have  ever 
received  the  full  stipulated  value.  These  contracts,  or  sales,  are  re- 
pudiated by  the  goverment  of  Texas,  in  the  10th  article  of  the  general 


provisions  of  the  Constitution,  on  the  grounds  that  the  purchasers  were 
not  citizens  of  Mexico,  and  that  the  grants  were  repugnant  to  the 
general  colonization  law  of  1824,  as  decreed  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. 1  have,  heretofore,  shown  that  the  same  objections  could  be 
made,  and  with  equal  force,  against  all  the  grants  made,  through 
Empressarios,  by  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas.  I  will  not  ques- 
tion the  right  of  Texas,  as  an  independent  nation,  to  invalidate  such 
grants ;  for  we  have  instances  of  repudiation,  of  somewhat  similar 
character,  among  our  own  States.  But  how  far  they  would  be  bind- 
ing upon  the  United  States,  in  case  of  annexation,  is  a  question  of 
great  moment.  In  the  returns  made  by  the  government  of  Texas,  of 
the  amount  of  land  granted  and  donated  by  the  Mexican  and  Texian 
authorities,  these  immense  sales  are  not  included  ;  nor  are  the  eleven 
league  grants,  located  within  ten  leagues  of  the  coast,  and  twenty 
leagues  of  the  United  States — they,  also,  being  contrary  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law  of  1824.  Should  Texas  lose  her  identity  as  an 
independent  nation,  by  being  annexed  to  us,  her  constitution  and 
acts  of  repudiation  must,  as  a  matter  of  course,  become  a  dead  letter. 
The  right  or  justice  of  all  land  claims  must  be  considered,  under  the 
existing  laws  of  the  States  of  Mexico. 

It  is  not  for  a  moment  to  be  presumed  that  either  Mexico  or  Texas 
would  enter  into  a  negotiation  with  us,  unless  under  a  guarantee  on 
our  part  that  all  legal  titles  to  land  within  the  territory  should  be  con- 
firmed. In  fact,  such  is  one  of  the  leading  provisions  of  the  Treaty 
negotiated  by  Mr.  Tyler,  and  laid  before  the  Senate.  These  immense 
grants,  made  as  they  were  under  the  sanction  of  Texas  herself,  acting 
through  her  representatives  in  the  Congress  of  Coahuila  and  Texas, 
although  repudiated  by  Texas,  as  an  independent  nation,  would  and 
must  be,  in  justice,  binding  upon  these  United  States,  unless  other- 
wise expressly  provided  for.  The  people  of  Texas,  and  the  scrip- ^ 
holders  in  this  country,  are  too  deeply  interested  in  the  confirmation 
of  their  titles,  to  permit  any  negotiations  that  shall  invalidate  them. 
And  Mexico,  provided  she  is  ever  brought  to  confirm  the  cession,  or 
to  agree  to  a  common  boundary,  will  take  care  that  she  burthens  the 
concession  with  every  possible  claim  that  can  be  brought.  It  will  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  in  the  repudiation  of  the  titles  of  this  immense 
quantity  of  land,  Texas  was  acting  in  self-defence.  Her  position,  at 
the  period,  demanded  that  every  means  in  her  power  should  be  used, 
to  attach  the  residents  to  the  soil,  and  to  identify  their  interests  with 
hers.  The  then  existing  grants,  under  the  Mexican  authorities,  cov- 
ered nearly  every  acre  of  her  available  land.  Without  money,  or  a 
provision  of  any  of  the  materials  of  war,  she  could  only  look  to  her 
public  lands  for  the  means  of  defence.  The  profuse  and  reckless 
decrees  of  the  State  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  passed  in  opposition  to 
the  National  Colonization  Law,  (although  her  own  representatives 
performed  a  prominent  part  in  their  passage,)  ofliered  the  most  avail- 
able means  of  clearing  off  the  incumbrances  upon  her  public  domain. 
The  individuals,  too,  who  constituted  her  national  assemblies,  were 


ir 

large  holders  of  land.  The  vitiating  of  those  titles  gave  a  great  in* 
crease  in  value  to  theirs.  The  justice  of  their  repudiation,  under  the 
circumstances,  had  but  little  weight.  They  had  entered  into  a  contest, 
which  could  only  be  carried  on  by  exciting  the  cupidity  of  adventurers, 
with  the  offer  of  a  distribution  of  the  soil  among  those  who  should 
successfully  defend  it.  Should  she  remain  an  independent  nation, 
the  policy  of  the  measure  could  not  be  questioned,  whatever  might  be 
said  of  her  public  faith.  But  should  her  nationality  become  extinct 
by  annexation,  we  should  be  compelled,  in  good  faith,  to  confirm 
these  titles,  even  if  they  were  not  forced  upon  us,  as  concessions  of 
Texas,  while  forming  an  integral  pan  of  Coahuila  and  Texas — or  as 
claims  for  which  Mexico  would  be  bound  to  provide,  in  a  treaty  of 
assent  and  boundary. 

I  stated,  in  my  last  letter,  that  the  amount  of  existing  land  titles, 
acknowledged  by  Texas,  was  between  sixty  and  seventy  millions  of 
acres.  I  will,  in  my  calculation,  suppose  it  to  be  sixty-five  millions. 
Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  the  acknowledged  existence 
of  such  an  amount  of  good  titles  is  not  only  no  proof  that  it  embraces 
all,  but  is  in  fact  a  proof  that  claims  exist  to  a  much  greater  extent. 
Titles,  to  an  immense  amount,  have  already  been  thrown  out  by  the 
land  offices ;  many  of  which  titles  are  now  in  litigation  in  her  Courts 
— and  many  more  would  be,  but  for  the  cost  and  difliiculty  of  their 
prosecution.  It  is  well  knowp  that  titles  for  many  millions  of  acres,** 
presumed  by  judges  to  be  good,  are  now  floating  in  the  United  States^ 
which  have  never  been  presented  for  examination  or  confirmation. 
These  may  swell  the  amount  to  an  extent,  not  even  suspected  by  the 
Texian  government.  I  know,  from  the  manner  in  which  business  has 
been  conducted  in  the  several  land  offices  of  Texas — as  a  Colony, 
State,  and  Independent  Nation — that  no  estimate  near  to  the  trut|ij 
can  be  formed,  of  the  quantity  of  land  sold  and  donated.  Prior  to* 
1836,  there  was  no  regular  systen),  either  of  record  or  survey. 

However  desirous  the  Government  may  have  been  to  establish 
order  and  system  in  her  land  department,  it  could  not  have  been  done 
in  half  a  century,  with  the  means  she  has  had  at  her  command.  We 
have,  then,  good  reason  for  supposing  that  the  actual  claims  will 
much  exceed  sixty-five  millions.  To  that  amount  are  to  be  added  the 
claims  I  have  designated  as  repudiated  by  Texas.  I  have  not  ih^ 
documents  before  me  to  show  the  number  of  grants  that  haye  beetj 
located  within  ten  leagues  of  the  coast,  and  twenty  of  the  boundary 
of  the  United  States — but,  if  the  reader  will  run  his  eye  over  the  ma^. 
and  observe  the  extent  of  territory  included  in  the  limits,  and  bear  m 
mind  that,  from  its  location,  it  is  the  most  valuable  portion  of  her  ter- 
ritory, he  can  form  an  idea  of  the  extent  to  which  it  has  been  shingled 
over  with  surveys  and  titles.  I  will  call  these  claims  fifteen  millions, 
which  is  undoubtedly  a  small  estimate — making  the  entire  land  claims 
of  Texas  eighty  millions  of  acrps,  without  reference  to  claims  riot  yet 
presented. 

Having  thus  examined  the  characteT  of  the  land  titles,  and  made 
3 


18 

what  1  consider  a  fair  estimate  of  the  claims  upon  the  public  domain 
of  Texas,  I  will  next  proceed  to  show  what  are  the  limits  of  Texas 
proper,  from  the  best  authorities — what  claims  she  has  to  the  boun- 
dary established  by  her  own  act  of  Congress — the  almost  utter  im- 
possibility of  Mexico's  ever  acceding  to  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  the 
boundary — and  that  the  land-claims  designated  above,  will  more  than 
cover  every  acre  of  available  land. 


LETTER   VI. 

January  14. 

Sir  : — The  boundaries  of  the  several  States  of  Mexico  have  never ' 
been  accurately  settled.  Acts  have  been,  from  time  to  time,  passed 
by  the  different  States  and  Departments,  and  Commissioners  have 
been,  in  several  cases,  appointed  to  mark  out  boundary  lines;  but  the 
nature  of  the  country,  fear  of  robbers,  and  the  constant  liability  of 
molestation  from  wandering  Indian  tribes,  have  effectually  prevented 
any  definite  action  in  the  matter.  I  believe  that  no  map  exists,  upon 
which  the  limits  of  all  the  States  and  Departments  are  delineated — 
and,  even  in  those  deemed  the  best  authority,  which  have  traced  the 
outlines  of  the  States  bordering  upon  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  no  two 
agree.  The  only  authorities,  therefore,  that  can  be  saf(;ly  relied 
upon,  to  settle  the  question  as  to  the  extent  of  Texas  proper,  are  the 
acts  of  th3  Legislature  of  Coahuila  and  Texas,  and  the  limits  over 
which,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  the  other  States,  she  held  undis- 
puted sovereignty.  The  boundary  line,  dividing  Texas  from  New 
Mexico  or  Santa  Fe,  on  the  North,  has,  in  almost  every  map,  been 
run  along  the  banks  of  the  Red  River — yet  in  the  acts  of  the  two 
States  no  such  limits  are  named.  In  fact,  from  the  country  being 
unexplored,  and  in  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  Indians,  each  State 
has  considered  its  limits.  North  and  South,  as  indefinite.  So,  also, 
on  the  West,  in  the  boundary  between  Texas,  Santa  Fe  and  Chihua- 
hua, no  lines  have  been  drawn ;  and  the  territorial  limits  are  only 
known  by  conceded  right  of  jurisdiction.  What,  then,  are  the  limits^ 
of  Texas,  as  understood  by  Coahuila,  and  by  the  adjacent  States  } 
In  the  official  report  of  Gen.  Almonte,  (now  the  Minister  of  Mexico 
to  the  United  States,)  who  was  appointed  by  the  federal  government, 
in  1834,  as  Commissioner  to  settle  the  difficulties  then  existing  be- 
tween Coahuila  and  Texas  and  the  government,  he  states  that  Texas 
proper  is  situated  between  28  and  35  degrees  north  latitude,  and  17 
to  25  degrees  longitude  west  of  Washington — making  the  southern 
boundary  north  of  the  mouth  of  the  Nueces  river,  and  the  northern 
jaorth  of  the  Red  river — intending,  most  probably,  the  river  as  the 


I    UNfVERSfTY    f 


19 

line ;  and  in  the  west,  taking  in  part  of  what  has  been  usually  consid- 
ered the  territory  of  Santa  Fe.  These  limits  will  give  near  170,000 
square  miles,  or  109,000,000  of  acres.  In  the  liCgislative  acts  of 
Coahuila  and  Texas,  the  boundary  of  Texas,  as  a  Department,  com- 
mences at  the  mouth  of  the  river  Aransaso,  the  first  stream  north  of 
the  xNueces;  follows  the  river  to  its  source;  thence,  in  a  line,  to  the 
junction  of  the  Medina  and  San  Antonio,  near  Bexar;  and,  following 
the  Medina  to  its  sources,  thence,  in  a  westerly  line,  to  Chihuahua. 

The  reader  will  see,  by  a  reference  to  the  map,  the  large  extent  of 
country  embraced  between  this  boundary  and  the  Nueces.  Mrs. 
Holly,  in  her  work  on  Texas,  written  and  prepared  for  the  press  prior 
to  the  revolution — and  which,  from  the  fact  of  its  having  been  dic- 
tated and  arranged  by  Stephen  F  Austin,  the  pioneer  of  the  settle- 
ment, may  be  with  safety  considered  as  the  best  evidence  that  can  be 
offered,  for  all  the  claims  of  Texas — gives  the  boundary  as  follows  : — 

"  It  is  situated  between  27  and  33  deg.  33  min.  north  latitude,  and 
93  deg.  3D  min.  and  99  deg.  33  min.  west  longitude.  Its  boundaries 
are  the  Red  river,  separating  it  from  Arkansas,  on  the  North,  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  on  the  South,  ihe  Sabine  river  and  Louisiana  on  the 
East,  and  the  river  Nueces,  separating  it  from  Tamaulipas  and  Coa- 
huila, on  the  West — and  comprises  nearly  200,000  square  miles  of 
territory,"  Its  extreme  length,  she  says,  is  450  miles,  and  breadth 
400.  This,  allowing  it  to  be  a  rectangle,  would  be  but  180,000 
square  miles,  or  115.003,000  of  acres. 

This  evidence,  from  the  most  just  and  distinguished  man  that  ever 
trod  the  soil  of  Texas — one  who,  if  he  erred  at  all,  would  be  most 
likely  to  do  so  in  enlarging  the  territorial  extent  of  a  country  to  which 
he  had,  for  years,  devoted  every  energy,  both  of  mind  and  body — 
ought  to  be  conclusive,  in  the  mind  of  every  unprejudiced  citizen,  as 
to  the  extent  of  Texas  proper.  These  calculations  are,  however,  in 
my  opinion,  above  the  actual  quantity  of  land  within  the  old  limits  of 
Texas.  I  will,  however,  assume  them  as  the  basis  of  my  remarks. 
It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  these  calculations  cover  the  whole 
surfVice — water,  mountains,  &c.  Before  proceeding  to  the  consider- v 
ation  of  the  enlarged  boundary  of  Texas,  as  assumed  by  her  act  of 
Congress — and  which  the  friends  of  annexation  claim  as  the  territory 
to  be  actually  acquired  by  the  measure — I  shall  proceed  to  show  what 
would  be  ihe  quantity  and  value  of  the  public  land  acquired  by  these 
United  States,  should  annexation  take  place.  I  shall,  no  doubt,  be 
asked  why  I  confine  Texas  to  the  limits  above  named.  I  answer 
that,  under  no  circumstances,  can  these  limits  be  materially  changed, 
unless  by  a  war  of  conquest  against  Mexico.  The  acquisition  of 
Texas  proper  may  be  looked  upon  by  the  powers  of  Europe  with  in- 
difference— but  the  dismemberment  of  Mexico,  as  a  nation,  is  another 
question  ;  and  that  she  will  be  dismembered  by  an  enforcement,  on 
our  part,  of  the  Rio  Grande  boundary,  no  man  can  doubt,  who  is  at 
all  acquainted  with  the  present  situation  of  Mexico.  But,  upon  this 
point,  1  shall  speak  more  at  length  in  future  numbers. 


For  the  purpose  of  being  distinctly  understood,  I  will  detain  you  b 
moment,  with  a  concise  description  of  the  topography  of  Texas. 
Along  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  is  a  strip  of  land,  from  thirty  to  fifty  miles 
wide,  that,  with  slight  exceptions,  is  low  and  alluvial.  The  borders 
of  the  streams  that  pass  through  it  an;  well  wooded,  to  the  extent,  on 
an  average,  of  five  miles  back.  Between  these  streams  are  vast 
tracts  of  low  prairie  land,  without  irrigation,  unfit  for  cultivation,  and 
considered  of  so  little  value  that  they  are  never  located  upon,  (except 
in  connection  with  the  woodland.  These  comparatively  waste  lands 
constitute  about  one  half  of  the  belt  of  low  land  bordering  on  the 
Gulf.  Back  of  the  low  land  is  what  is  usually  called  the  rolling 
land,  extending  to  the  mountains,  a  distance  of  from  one  hundred  and 
fifty  to  two  hundred  miles.  Mdch  of  this  range  is,  from  want  of 
water,  and  other  causes,  totally  unfit  for  cultivation.  Back  of  this 
is  the  mountain  region,  which  will  not  probably  be  settled  for  centu- 
ries  to  come.  I  have  shown  from  the  best  authority — that  of  Gen. 
Austin — that  Texas  does  not  contain  over  115,000,000  acre^.  From 
this  area  should  be  deducted  the  water  and  waste  land,  \vhich  would 
^reduce  it  to  less  than  100,000,000.  I  have  before  shown  that  the  ac- 
^knowled^ed  land  claims  exceeded  80,000,000  of  acres ;  leaving  but 
20,000,000  of  acres  now  undisposed  of.  While  there  is  no  country 
oh  this  continent  that  possesses  land  of  such  excellent  iquality  as 
•Texas,  there  is  none  that  has  comparatively  so  large  a  portion  of 
that  which  is  worthless.  I  shall  be  borne  out,  by  every  Texian,  in 
the  assertion,  that  at  least  one  third  of  her  soil  is  so  destitute  of  water, 
that  it  cannot  be  used  for  agricultural  purposes.  All  the  land  of  any 
value,  both  in  the  low  and  rolling  country,  has  long  since  been  sur- 
veyed and  taken  up — at  least  to  such  an  extent  that  all  late  surveying 
has  been  done  far  in  the  interior,  and  a  large  part  of  it  out  of  Texas 
proper.  An  English  surveyor,  who  had  been  three  years  in  the 
country,  and  constantly  employed,  assured  me,  nearly  a  year  since, 
that  there  was  not  a  league  of  land  unlocated,  within  two  hundred 
miles  of  the  Gulf,  that  was  worth  the  cost  of  a  survey.  If,  then,  the 
Annexation  is  to  be  confined  to  Texas  proper — and  I  think  I  shall  be 
able  to  fully  convince  any  unprejudiced  mind  that  it  must  be — these 
United  States  will  realize,  at  the  utmost,  but  twenty  millions  of  acres 
of  refuse  lands,  at  present  of  no  value,  and  not  likely  to  be  of  any  until 
the  country  shall  have  a  population  as  dense  as  that  of  Massachusetts. 
The  reader  will  perceive,  at  once,  that,  as  a  matter  of  national  spec- 
ulation, we  shall  find,  if  the  project  of  Annexation  is  successful,  that,*' 
in  the  words  of  Fraiiklin,  "  we  have  paid  too  dear  for  the  whistle.*^ 


21 

^:-  LETTER  VII, 

January  15. 

Sir : — The  act  of  the  Congress  of  Texas,  defining  her  boundary, 
"J>assed  Dec.  19th,  1836,  reads  as  follows : 

That  from  and  aAer  the  passing  of  this  act,  the  civil  and  political  juris- 
diction of  this  Republic  be,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  extend  to  the  following 
boundaries,  to  wit :  beginning  at  the  mouth  of  the  Sabine  1-iVer,  and  running 
west  along  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  three  leagues  from  land,  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Rio  Grande — thence  up  the  principal  stream  of  the  said  river  to  its  source — 
thence  due  North  to  the  forty-second  degree  of  North  latitude — thence  along 
the  boundary  line,  as  defined  in  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and 
Spain  to  the  beginning. 

In  the  Treaty  now  before  the  Senate,  th6  question  of  boundary  is 
not  altudedTor^norTias  It  been  touched  upohV  so  far  as  1  have  seen, 
in  any  of  the  public  documents  connected  with  the  negotiation.  One 
would  suppose  that  the  extent  of  territory  embraced  in  the  proposed 
cession  would  be  the  first  point  discussed.  Why  is  the  plain  question 
of  the  right  of  Texas  to  her  assumed  boundary  sedulously  avoided, 
by  the  friends  of  the  measure  ?  They  have  presented  annexation 
as  a  party  question — and  they  still  discuss  it  as  such.  Annex  Texas, 
say  they,  and  certain  results  will  follow — and  when  the  question  is 
asked.  What  portion  of  North  America  is  covered  by  it? — they  point 
you  to  the  Act  above  recited,  and  the  new  maps  of  that  country,  and 
say — that  is  Texas.  Fortunately  for  public  justice  and  international 
rights,  neither  acts  of  Congress,  nor  the  tools  of  an  engraver,  can 
convey  a  right,  where  none  legally  exists. 

In  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  made  by  the  inhabitants,  in 

March,  1836,  it  is  expressly  declared  to  be  "  the  declaration  of  the 

people  of  Texas.''''     In  every  public   document  emanating  from  the 

assemblies  of  the  people,  prior  and  subsequent  to  that  declaration, 

their  jurisdiction  is  limited  to  Texas  proper,  or  the  department  ^f 

Texas.     Neither  Coahuila,  Chihuahua,  or  New  Mexico,  took  part  in 

the  revolution.     Not  a  battle  was  fought  beyond  the  limits  of  Texas 

proper — nor  has  she  ever  had  possession  of   a  foot  of  the  soil  over 

.jWhich  she  has  now,  on  paper,  extended   her  jurisdiction.     She  has 

«not,  on  the  north,  even  the  doubtful  right  of  an  assumed  natural 

4)oundary,  even  though  she  should  claim  the  Rio  Grande  on  the  south 

as  such.     In  fact,  her  claim  is  based  on  no  other  foundation  than  her 

own  act.     She  has  no  right  from  possession,  conquest,  concession, 

occupation,  or  the  assent  of  the  inhabitants.     The  jurisdiction  is,  and 

has  ever  been,  in  the  States  claiming  the  territory.     By  an  act  of 

:  Congress,  passed  in  December,  1838,  to  raise  troops  for  the  defence 

1^  of  the  frontier,  the  Neuces  and  Red  river  are  named  as  the  extreme 

.  outposts  of  her  territory.     To  assume  the  position  that  the  mere^ 

.claim  of  Texas  constitutes  a  right  which  she  may  convey  to  a  third 

fower,  when  that  right  has  not  a  shadow  of  foundation  in  the  prin- 


22 

ciples  of  international  law,  appears  to  me  absurd.  If  the  principle  is 
to  be  allowed,  why  not  make  the  annexation  at  least  a  decent 
speculation.  The  Texian  Congress  is  now  in  cession.  Let  our 
Charge  des  affaires  apply  for  the  passage  of  an  act,  supplementary 
to  the  above,  including  Upper  and  Lower  California  within  her 
boundary.  With  this  addition,  it  might  possibly  be  a  national  spec- 
ulation, with  all  its  incumbrances.  For  myself,  I  cannot  conceive 
how  the  strongest  advocates  of  annexation  can,  in  any  way,  defend 
the  claim  of  Texas  to  the  territory  beyond  her  original  limits,  as  a 
department  of  Mexico.  Were  the  territory  which  she  thus  claims, 
entirely,  as  it  is  partially,  in  the  undisturbed  possession  of  roving 
Indians,  the  claim  would  be  doubtful — but,  including  as  it  does  part  of 
two  States,  and  almost  the  whole  of  New  Mexico,  a  popvilation  that  has 
taken  no  part  in  her  contest — that  has  been  and  still  continues  at 
open  war  with  her — it  does  appear  to  me  the  height  of  absurdity  to 
even  give  the  claim  a  serious  consideration.  But  we  are  told  that 
the  boundary  is  to  be  a  subject  of  future  negotiation.  In  other  words, 
it  is  to  be  left  to  the  Lion  to  secure  the  prey  of  the  Jackall. 

These  United  States,  with  a  power  capable  of  crushing  Mexico  at 
a  blow,  are  to  settle  the  question  of  the  territorial  right  of  Texas. 
Does  any  man,  in  his  senses,  believe  that  men,  who  have  gone  all 
lengths  with  the  negotiation  as  a  party  measure — who  have  based 
their  political  faith  upon  its  success — and  who  predicate  future  power, 
upon  rendering  the  result  acceptable  to  the  mass  of  their  party — will 
yield  one  foot  of  the  soil  so  acquired,  to  so  contemptible  a  power  as 
Mexico  ?  Not  one  man  in  one  thousand,  of  the  Loco  Foco  party, 
will  ever  stop  to  question  our  right  to  the  assumed  boundary.  What 
Texas  claimed  will  be  the  claim  of  the  party — and,  right  or  wrong, 
the  administration  will  be  compelled  to  submit.  It  is  but  folly  to  talk 
of  public  honesty  and  justice,  when  the  price  of  both  is  the  exclusion 
from  the  loaves  and  fishes  of  office.  But  let  us  look  at  another,  and 
by  far  the  most  important  light  in  which  this  subject  can  be  placed. 
^  Can,  or  will  Mexico  negotiate  a  boundary  with  us,  provided  Texas  is 
annexed?  To  answer  this  question,  we  must  fully  understand  the 
^character  of  the  Mexican  population,  and  its  influence  upon  that 
"^government.  Difference  of  religion,  the  influence  of  the  priesthood, 
'the  war  ofthe  last  nine  years,  and  the  compulsory  enlistments  in  the 
•-  army,  for  the  several  attempted  invasions  of  Texas,  have  created, 
throughout  Mexico,  the  most  bitter  hatred  against  the  Texians.  It 
has  been  the  policy  of  Santa  Anna,  and  his  satellites,  to  increase  this 
feeling  to  as  great  an  extent  as  possible.  Late  events  have  trans- 
ferred part  of  these  feelings  to  the  government  and  people  of  these 
United  States.  Grossly  ignorant — acting  only  from  impulse,  or  the 
fear  of  their  superiors — the  people  are  ever  the  ready  tools  of  the 
ambitious  and  designing.  A  large  portion  of  the  popularity  of  Santa^ 
Anna  may  be  attributed  to  his  avowed  enmity  to  Texas.  The  sur- 
render of  that  department,  or  the  attempt  to  negotiate  for  its  surrender, 
would  be  the  signal  for  a  revolution  that  would  overturn  any  adminis- 


.      23 

tration.  Every  Mexican  believes  his  country  to  be  the  greatest  and 
most  powerful  nation  in  the  world — and  the  idea  that  these  United 
States  could  successfully  contend  against  them,  would  be  to  them  an 
absurdity.  No  individual  in  power,  in  Mexico,  would  dare  to  enter-** 
tain  the  idea  of  surrendering  Texas — nor  could  such  a  surrender  be 
obtained,  except  by  force.  With  this  character,  of  the  material  of 
which  the  nation  is  composed,  it  will  be  seen,  at  once,  that  any  attempt 

^at  a  peaceable  negotiation,  must  fail.  I  mean  these  remarks  as  ap-* 
plying  to  the  negotiation  for  the  cession  of  Texas  proper.  But  there 
is  another,  and  yet  more  powerful  objection.  In  the  correspondence 
of  our  foreign  ministers,  in  relation  to  the  view  that  the  great  powers 
of  Europe  take  of  the  proposed  measure,  the  replies  have  referred 
literally  to  Texas,  or  Texas  proper,  as  it  is  found  on  all  the  maps, 
excepting  those  got  up  for  this  occasion.  Our  government,  and  that 
of  Texas,  have  carefully  kept  in  the  dark  the  fact  that  almost  one 
entire  State  of  the  Mexican  Confederacy,  and  a  large  part  of  two 
others,  were  included  in  these  negotiations.  When  our  Government 
shall  attempt — as,  in  case  of  annexation,  it  most  assuredly  will — to 
obtain  the  assumed  boundary,  the  transeiction  will  assume  an  entire^ 
new  feature  in  the  eyes  of  France  and  England.  They  will  be  likelyj^ 
to  return  across  the  Atlantic  the  words  of  President  Monroe — "  That 
they  cannot  look  with  indifference  upon  any  attempt  to  interfere  with 
the  policy  of  the  Southern  Republics."  It  will  be  in  the  eyes  of  ^ 
Europe,  a  dismemberment  of  the  Mexican  nation — a  proceeding  that 
will  not  be  tamely  submitted  to.  The  three  States,  cut  up. by  the 
assumed  boundary,  are  the  most  important  in  the  confederacy.  They 
bear  about  the  same  relation  to  the  Mexican  confederacy  that  New 
York,  Virginia,  and  Maryland  bear  to  ours. 

By  the  constitutional  law,  the  Supreme  Government  have  no  power 
to  cede  any  part  of  the  territory  of  a  State,  without  its  consent,  any 
more  than  our  General  Government  would  have  the  power  to  cede  a 
part  of  Massachusetts.  From  what  1  have  already  said  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  people,  it  will  be  seen,  at  once,  that  the  consent  of  these 
States  could  not  be  obtained.  With  Coahuila  and  New  Mexico,  it 
would  be  their  almost  total  annihilation.  Of  course,  under  no  cir- 
cumstances could  it  be  expected  of  them.  If  these  opinions  are 
correct — and  that  they  are,  I  feel  confident  from  much  personal 
observation — we  can  acquire  no  claim  from  Texas  that  we  can  hon- 

■*orably  enforce,  beyond  the  territory  embraced  in  her  original  limits — 

.  ?ind  the  establishment  of  those  limits,  by  treaty,  is  problematical. 
The  attempt  to  establish  her  asssumed  boundary,  could  only  be 
maintained  at  the  expense  of  a  war,  and  at  the  hazard  of  European 
mterference — so  that  our  possession,  under  any  circumstances,  must 
be  a  possession  secured  by  force.  I  have  thus,  as  I  promised,  briefly 
considered  the  question  of  boundary — and  will,  in  my  next,  take  up 
the  subject  of  the  holders  of  Texian  Land  Scrip. 
i- " 

"6v 


:/.^.l:.  LETTER   VIII. 

January  21. 

Sir  : — The  next  point  to  which  I  would  respectfully  direct  your 
attention,  is — who  are  the  holders  of  Texian  Scrip  and  securities  ?#• 
In  the  answer  to  this  question  is  involved  the  whole  history  of  the> 
project  of  Annexation.  Up  to  the  period  of  the  revolution  of  Texas  ^ 
—-and,  in  fact,  up  to  the  application  of  Texas,  under  the  administr^i- 
tion  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  for  admission  into  the  Union,  our  public 
journals  were  silent  as  to  any  claims  of  the  United  States  upon  her  ^ 
territory.  The  undefined  limits  of  Louisiana,  in  the  Spanish  treaty 
of  cession  to  France — and  the  vague  manner  in  which  the  boundary 
is  laid  down  in  Mr.  Jefferson's  treaty  for  the  purchase — might 
have  left  the  question  of  right  doubtful,  had  not  subsequent  trea- 
ties settled  the  question.  The  treaty  with  Spain,  for  the  cession 
of  Florida,  contains  an  absolute  abandonment,  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  of  all  territorial  claims  south  of  the  Sabine.  The  idea 
of  re-annexation  has  answered  its  purpose,  as  a  party  humbug,  in 
arousing  the  prejudices  of  political  fanatics  ;  but  that  it  has  ever  been 
seriously  advanced  by  a  sound  statesman,  I  very  much  doubt.  The 
^question  of  Annexation  bus  not  originated  from  any  presumed  na- 
tional claim,  nor  from  any  particular  sympathy,  which  we,  as  a 
people,  feel  towards  Texas.  Had  she  been  unsuccessful  in  her  strug- 
gle for  independence,  or  had  her  independence  been  acknowledged 
by  Mexico,  on  the  return  of  Santa  Anna  after  the  battle  of  San  Ja- 
cinto, the  present  question  would  never  have  been  agitated  in  Con- 
gress. Even  in  its  present  position,  it  cannot  be  considered  as  an 
application  on  the  part  of  Texas — nor  does  it  appear  to  be  required 
by  her,  as  a  means  of  prosperity  or  defence. 

^  The  causes  of  the  agitation  of  this  momentous  project  are  to  be 
sought  for  within  the  limits  of  our  own  territory,  and  among  our  own 
citizens.  To  illustrate  my  meaning,  I  will  give  a  brief  history  of 
the  speculations  in  Land  Scrip.  Prior  to  the  revolution,  the  land 
titles  issued  by  the  Mexican  authorities,  under  Empressario  grants, 
were  almost  exclusively  held  by  the  inhabitants,  and  the  military 
grants  by  the  grantees,  or  by  citizens  of  Mexico.  The  facility  with 
which  lands  could  be  acquired  by  emigration,  or  with  which  they 
could  be  obtained  from  the  States  of  Mexico,  rendered  them  of 
little  value.  In  the  market  of  the  United  States,  they  were  not  a 
matter  of  speculation — at  least  where  their  value  was  known.  The 
colonists,  with  Yankee  shrewdness,  saw,  that  while  that  state  of  things 
existed,  the  lands  they  had  acquired  would  be  valueless — that  if  even 
a  nominal  separation  from  Mexico  could  be  broijght  about,  and  the 
continued  accumulation  of  new  titles  be  stopped,  those  then  in  exis- 
tence would  be  immensely  increased  in  value.  Every  inhabitant  of 
the  country,  being  from  necessity  a  land-holder,  was  easily  induced 
to  join  in  measures  of  a  revolutionary  character.     The  contest  once  ' 


commenced,  the  sympathy  felt  by  us,  as  a  people  allied  to  them  in 
blood  and  language,  gave  full  assurance  of  their  ultimate  success. 
Their  revolution  commenced  at  a  period  unexampled  in  the  annals 
of  our  counlry,  for  wild   and   visionary  speculations.     The  repudia-^ 
tion  of  the  Empressario  and   other  grants  of  the  State  of  Coahuila  *~  ^ 
and  Texns,  made  the  then  existing  titles  assume  a  value,  in  the  eyes^ 
of  speculators,  far  abovo  their  actual  worth.     Titles  to  an  immense  . 
amount  were  readily. disposed  of,  in  the  South  and  West — many  of 
them    manufactured    expressly  to   meet  the    ready  demand.      The 
Bounty  Lands  given  to  those  who  joined  the  army,  issued  m  the  form 
of«certificates,  were  sold  to  speculators  to  any  extent.     The  battle  of 
San  Jacinto,  and  its  astounding  results,  drew  at  once  the  attention  of 
wealthy  and  influential  men  to  the  lands  of  Texas,  selling,  even  as 
they  then  were,  at  one  quarter  of  the  price  of  our  own  public  lands. 
They  saw,  from  the   highly  excited  state  of  popular  feeling,  that 
the  recognition  of  the  Independence  of  Texas  was  morally  certain— 
and  that,  in  case  of  such  recognition  by  these  United  Stales,  an  im- 
mense increase  in  the  value  of  land  would  accrue — nor  did  they,  for 
one  motnent,  doubt  that  Mexico,  humbled  as  she  was,  with  her  Chief 
Magistrate  a   prisoner,  would  tJimely  submit  to  the   loss.     Immensew 
sums  were,  under  these  views,  invested   in  Land  Scrip.     But  what 
was  the  result.^     The  influence  of  speculators  upon  Congress,  sec- *: 
ended  by  the  warm  enthusiasm  of  the  people,  aroused  at  the  success 
of  a  nation  struggling  for  liberty,  obtained  the  recognition  of  Texian*' 
Independence,  in  which  we  were   rapidly  seconded   by  both  France 
and  England.     Contrary,  however,  to  the  general   expectation,  lios- 
tilities  continued  between  Mexico  and   Texas.     The   interest  on   the 
public  debt,  incurred   during  her  struggle — the   necessary   expendi- 
tures for  her  defence — required   new  and  continued   issues  of  Land 
Scrip.     As  an  Independent  Nation,  it  was  soon  seen  that  lier  revenue^ 
could  not,  for  many  years  to  come,  be  equal  to  her  expenditure— 
and  that,  instead   of  the  holders  of  Land  Scrip  being  able  to  effect 
sales  at  a  profit,  the  issues  and  grants  of  the  Covernment  were  greater 
than  the  demand.     In   this  state  of  things,  the  real  and   imaginary 
holders,  at  the  South  and   W^est,  saw  that,  unless  some  means  were 
devised  to  stop  the  increase  of  Land  Scrip  by  the  Government,  or  of  ^^ 
that  which  was  in  fact  the  same  thing,  the  continued  increase  of  the 
public  debt  for  which  the  public  domain  was  pledged — that  they  must 
inevitably  sacrifice  their  property  in  the  country.     The  only  remedy** 
for  the  difficulties   under  which  Texas  labored,  was  admission  into 
the  Union.     That  would  at  once  give  a  value  to  the  scrip  and  titles, 
equal  to,  if  noi  greater  than,  the  lanJs  of  these  United  States.     The  L^- 
measure,  apparently  so  tempting  to  our  Government,  and  so  profitable 
to  them,  was  urged  upon  the  Congress  of  Texas.     As  may  be  sup- 
posed, when  the  pocket  of  every  member  of  that  body  was  interested, 
the   project   found   but  few  opponents.     The  offer  was   made.     No 
definite  action  was  then  taken   upon  it — and,  subsequently,  it  was 
w^rithdrawn  by  Texas.     Here  let  me  request  the  reader  to  bear  in 
4 


26 

mind  that,  at  this  period,  it  was  well  known  that  there  was  not  even 
a  respectable  minority  of  the  people  in  favor  of  the  measure  ;  and 
that  the  offer  was  refused,  by  an  administration  avowing  to  be  gov- 
^erned  by  the  same  general  political  principles  as  the  party  that  have 
elected  James  K.  Polk. 

^  Since  the  withdrawal  of  the  proposition,  the  people  of  Texas  have 
become  more  and  more  impoverished,  and  the  scrip  and  securities 
have  been  gradually  losing  value,  until  this  second  agitation  of  the 
"question.     The  accidental  accession  of  Tyler  to  the  Presidency,  and 

'  his  evident  determination  to  court  the  Democratic  party,  by  open 
*'treachery  to  the  party  that  had  elected  him — offered  an  opportunity 
*^of  reviving  the  Annexation  question.  The  policy  of  making  another 
proposition  for  admission  into  the  Union,  was  urged  upon  the  Texiaif^ 
Government  by  many  large  landholders  of  the  South.  That  Gov- 
ernment, however,  refused  to  repeat  an  offer  that  had  so  lately  been 
treated  with  indifference.  It  did  not  object,  however,  to  enter  into 
negotiations,  subject  to  the  final  ratification  of  the  two  Governments. 
To  make  the  project  a  party  question,  and  to  identify  it  with  Southern 
interests,  by  making  it  subservient  to  the  extension  of  slave  represen- 
tation in  Congress,  was  all  that  was  necessary  to  insure  the  hearty 
concurrence  of  John  Tyler.  The  immense  quantity  of  floating  scrip, 
good  and  bad,  existing  in  the  West  and  South,  was  well  known  by 
the  leading  Loco  Foco  politicians.  The  manner  in  which  it  could  be 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  Ballot  Box,  was  equally  well  known.  Under 
the  idea  that  it  would  secure  his  nomination  in  the  Convention  at 
Baltimore,  and  make  him  the  favorite  candidate  of  the  self-styled 
Democratic  party,  John  Tyler  was  easily  induced  to  commence  the 
secret  negotiations  that  resulted  in  the  Treaty  now  before  the  Senate. 
I  have  thus  given  a  history  of  the  views  and  operations  of  the  hold- 
ers of  Texian  lands.  If  it  does  not  carry,  in  itself,  intrinsic  evidence 
of  its  truth,  when  compared  with  the  facts  and  statements  now  before 
the  public,  no  asseverations  of  mine  could  give  it  additional  weight. 
It  may  be  asked,  why  a  large  majority  of  this  scrip  should  be  found 
in  the  hands  of  the  Democratic  party  >  For,  unless  it  is  so,  the  posi- 
tion I  have  taken,  I  may  be  told,  is  not  tenable.  1  shall,  however, 
defer  the  answer  until  my  next  letter,  as  I  have  already  exceeded  my 
usual  limits — and  I  shall  also  show,  by  the  characters  of  the  actors  in 

%^this  political  drama,  that  money ^  and  not  patriotism,  was  originally 
the  prompter  of  this  Annexation  movement. 


27 


LETTER   IX. 

February  4. 

Sir  : — Shortly  after  the  establishment  of  the  Provisional  Govern- 
ment, in  November,  1835,  Messrs.  Austin,  Archer    and   Wharton 
j  were  despatched  to  the  United  States,  as  commissioners  of  Texas, 
I  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating,  if  possible,  with  our  government,  for 
\  assistance  ;  and  with  full  powers  to  contract  loans,  furnish  munitions 
of  war,  and  commission  officers  for  the  army  and  navy.     Before 
leaving  New  Orleans  for  Washington,  they  contracted  a  loan  of  two 
himdred  thousand  dollars,  upon  the  security  of  the   public    lands. 
With  this  sum  was  commenced  the  war  with  Mexico.     An  agency 
was  established  at  New  Orleans,  with  full  powers  to  raise  and  equip 
a  navy,  accept  the  services  of  volunteers  for  the  army,  forward 
supplies,  &c.     This  agency,  from  the  distracted  state  of  the  country, 
and  the  difficulty  of  holding  any  communication  with    the  actual 
government,  became,  de  facto,  for  a  time,  the  executive  government 
of  Texas — presenting  the  singular  anomaly  of  a  war,  virtually  con- 
ducted and  supported  by  aliens,  holding  no  allegiance  to  either  party, 
and  residing  upon  the  territory  of  a  nation  at  peace  with  both  parties, 
and  professing  the  most  perfect  neutrality.     At  the  time  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  this  agency,  Mexico  had  a  fleet  which  commanded  the 
Gulf.     No  aid  could,  with  safety,  be  sent  to  Texas,  unless  she  could 
be  made  superior  to  her  enemies  on  the  sea.     Within  three  months, 
four  heavy  armed  schooners  were  equipped,  within    sight  of  the 
Custom  House  at  New  Orleans — and,  within  four  months,  they  drove 
into  port,  or  destroyed,  every   Mexican  cruiser.     The  loss  of  the^ 
command  of  the  sea  was  the  prime  cause  of  all  the  disasters  of  Santa 
Anna,  and  the  means  of  his  eventual  disgraceful  defeat     In  this  bold  C 
and  successful  manoeuvre,  executed  with  a  rapidity  lanexampled  in 
history,  lies  the  secret  of  the  extraordinary  success  of  the  revolution 
of  Texas.     During  the  conflict,  transports  were  continually  leaving 
New  Orleans,  filled  with  armed  volunteers.     Munitions  of  war  were 
openly  purchased  and  shipped,  and,  in  one  case,  an  armed  steamboat 
and  three  transports,  with  five  hundred  volunteers,  under  Gen.  Green, 
fitted  out  and  sailed  from  the  Levee,  directly  in  front  of  the  Custom 
House,  with  drums  beating,  and  Texian  colors  flying.     These  re-^ 
marks  are  made  to  show  the  indirect  support  given  by  the  adminis- 
tration of  Gen.  Jackson,  to  the  revolt  in  Texas.     To  say  that  our 
government  were  ignorant  of  these  movements,  or  had  not  the  power 
•to  stop  them,  is  absurd.     The  public  favor  shown  to  the  cause,  gave 
it,  with  Jackson  men,  the  character  of  a  party  movement.     The 
leading  and  opulent  men  of  Louisiania,  Mississippi,  and  Alabama, 
were,  at  that  period,  almost  universally  ranged  under  the  Jackson 
flag.     It  was   evident  that   both  the  administration  and   the    party 
favored  the  revolution.     They  were  confident  that,  with  the  power 


28^ 

of  their  party,  whatever  measures  were  determined  upon  must  be 
i^uccessful.  With  these  views,  they  could  have  no  doubt  of  the 
eventual  independence  of  Tt^xas,  and  of  her  ficknowled^ment,  as  a 
nation,  by  these  United  Sates.  They  felt  a  confidence  in  her  scrip 
and  securities,  which  was  not,  and  could  not  be  felt  by  the  other 
party.  They  invested  Inrgely  in  the  country.  The  result  and  the 
effects  of  these  investments,  I  have  endeavored  to  explain,  fully,  in 
my  last  letter.  Beyond  the  natural  inferences  to  be  drawn  from 
political  predilections,  I  have  other  and  personal  knowledge,  from  on 
acquaintance  with  the  parties,  to  warrant  me  in  asscrtinji;  that  a  vast 
majority  of  the  Land  Titles  of  Texas  are  now  in  the  hands  of  the 
Democratic  party,  so  called.  As  a  further  illustration  of  this  position, 
I  would  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  fact,  that  the  project  of 
^Annexation  has  found  its  most  zealous  supporters  among  members 
of  the  old  Jackson  party — and  that  the  most  noted  leaders  in  the 
project  are  not  only  Loco  Focos,  but  are  known  to  be  large  holders 
of  the  scrip.  Having  thus  attempted  to  show,  in  the  at'gregate,  who 
are  the  holders  of  Texian  securities,  I  will  now  detain  you,  for  a 
moment,  with  some  of  the  details  of  the  question  1  proposed  to  answer. 
The  quantity  of  land  under  cultivation  and  use,  in  Texas,  does  not 
exceed  three  millions  of  acres.  'J'he  quantity  owned  by  citizens 
resident  of  that  country,  does  not  exceed  seven  millions.  The 
quantity  owned  in  Euroj)e  has  lately  been  much  increased,  by  con- 
ditional grants,  made  by  the  Texian  Government,  for  the  introduction 
of  hinglish,  French,  and  German  emigrants.  These  grants  are  not 
includeil  in  my  former  estimate  of  land  claims.  'J'he  nature  of  the^e 
grants  has  not  yet  transpired,  nor  the  extent  to  which  they  have  been 
completed.  They  will,  no  doubt,  amount,  when  the  contracts  are 
fulfilled,  to  several  millions  i>f  acres.  The  house  of  Paring,  Broth- 
ers, &  Co.  are  the  owners  of  one  million  of  acres,  being  the  amount 
of  a  grant  made  by  the  Mexican  government  to  Col.  Milam.  This 
grant,  I  believe,  has  never  been  located,  and  is  not  included  in  the 
Texian  official  schedule  of  grants.  John  Woodward,  formerly  of 
New  York,  has  made  a  claim  through  the  British  government,  for 
about  two  millions  of  acres,  growing  out  of  the  vitiated  Empressario 
contracts.  His  claim,  however,  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Land  Com- 
panies named  in  my  second  letter,  and  is  totally  unfounded.  Beyond 
these,  there  are  but  a  few  titles,  and  those  small,  held  in  Europe. 
As  a  rough  estimate,  I  will  give  the  whole  amount  held  on  the  other 
side  of  the  Atlantic,  at  seven  millions  of  acres — leaving  to  be  owned 
by  citizens  of  the  United  States,  nearly  sixty  millions  of  acres.  I 
could,  if  circumstances  required  it,  or  I  thought  it  advisable,  give  the 
names  of  distinguished  individuals  of  the  Loco  Foco  party,  who  are 
large  holders  of  this  property.  The  opponents  of  this  measure, 
however,  have  too  good  a  cause  to  require  a  descent  to  personality 
to  sustain  their  position.  I  will  here  make  a  remark  in  regard  to 
those  who  are  the  holders  of  these  lands,  which  I  think  will  have 
some  influence  on  the  public  miod.     We,  as  a  people,  cannot  refrain^ 


29 

from  feeling  a  deep  sympathy  for  a  nation,  struggling  to  establish 
institutions  based  upon  the  same  principles  as  our  own.  In  the 
present  case,  we  naturally  associate  in  our  minds  the  present  pop- 
ulatian  of  Texas,  and  the  presumed  owners  of  her  soil,  with  those 
who  fought  the  battles  of  her  revolution — with  those  who  were 
massacred  at  Goliad — with  those  who  gloriously  fell  at  the  Alamo — 
or  who  returned,  in  triumph,  from  the  immortal  field  of  San  Jacinto. 
A  large  portion  of  our  fellow  citizens,  actuated  by  the  most  noble 
and  generous  impulses,  look  upon  the  success  of  Annexation  as  the 
means  of  securing,  to  the^^e  bold  pioneers  of  liberty,  that  for  which 
they  have  so  freely  poured  out  their  blood.  I  would  have  it  distinctly 
understood,  that  it  is  not  so.  With  here  and  there  a  solitary  excep- 
tion, a  new  race  of  men  occupy  the  places  of  the  revolutionary 
colonists.  The  Vandal  speculators  of  the  ]North  have  literally  over- 
run ihe  new  republic.  Of  the  whole  number  of  those  who  constitute 
the  present  Government  and  Congress,  there  are  only  four  names 
that  stand  prominent  in  her  revolutionary  history.  Of  the  volunteers 
who  entered  her  army,  I  am  confident,  not  one  hundred  men  are 
now  within  her  limits.  The  certificates  of  bounty  land,  received  for 
their  services,  have  long  since  passed,  for  a  mere  song,  into  the 
hands  of  speculators.  Of  the  old  residents  of  Texas — men  who,  ta 
forward  the  revolution,  pledged  every  dollar  of  their  property — there 
can  scarcely  be  found  one  who  is  not  in  poverty,  nor  one  who  has 
not  been  compelled  to  sacrifice  the  very  soil  for  which  he  fought,  to 
relieve  himself  from  pecuniary  embarrassment.  The  bulk  of  the*^ 
landed  property  of  Texas  is,  at  the  present  moment,  in  the  hands  of 
speculators  and  foreign  emigrants,  who  had  no  lot  or  share  in  the 
struggle  for  liberty — property,  which  has  cost  them  comparatively*, 
nothing — and  which,  should  the  project  of  Annexation  succeed,  will  c 
divide  among  them  at  least  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars. 

1  notice  that  a  resolution  has  been  offered  in  Congress,  calling 
upon  the  Executive  to  present  official  statements  of  the  actual  boun- 
dary of  Texas,  and  of  the  claims  upon  her  public  domain — and,  also,. 
of  the  amount  of  her  public  debt.  Should  Congress  conclude  to  defer 
the  question,  until  they  have  before  them  such  official  documents, 
obtained  from  the  government  of  Texas,  it  would  be  useless  ta 
expend  paper  and  ink  in  the  discussion  of  the  measure — for  the 
whole  matter  will  descend  to  the  "  tomb  of  the  Capulets."  The 
Texian  government  understand  their  own  position  too  well  to  present 
any  such  official  statements,  even  if  they  had  the  power  or  ability  to 
prepare  them — and  this  I  know  they  could  not  do,  with  any  degree 
of  accuracy,  without  years  of  laborious  investigation.  So  far  as 
regards  the  public  debt  of  Texas,  the  amount  is  unkown,  even  to  the 
government  itself.  In  my  next  letter  I  will  give  a  statement  of  the 
probable  amount,  from  her  public  documents  and  known  expenditures 


30 

LETTER  X. 

February  7. 

Sir  : — I  propose,  in  this  letter,  to  give  a  statement  of  the  National 
Debt  of  Texas,  its  origin,  and  probable  amount.  However  much 
that  Government  may  feel  disposed  to  answer  the  call  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  upon  this  question,  it  is  not,  for  reasons  I  shall 
hereafter  give,  in  her  power  to  exhibit  anything  like  an  accurate  state- 
ment. You,  sir,  are  well  conversant  with  the  position  of  the  finan- 
cial affairs  of  the  original  thirteen  States  of  our  confederacy, — imme- 
diately subsequent  to  the  Revolution.  The  position  of  the  finances 
of  Texas  is  nearly  similar.  Great  efforts  have  been  made  by  the^ 
Government,  under  the  present  Constitution,  to  arrange  and  consoli- 
date the  public  debt.  To  some  extent  they  have  been  successsful. 
Of  the  immense  mass  of  claims  that  originated  between  the  time  of 
the  dissolution  of  the  first  Convention  of  Delegates,  and  the  battle  of 
San  Jacinto,  while  the  country  was  virtually  without  an  organized 
government,  but  few  have  ever  been  settled.  Two  attempts  have 
been  made,  to  examine  into  the  validity  of  these  claims,  and  to  con- 
vert those  passed  upon  into  a  funded  debt.  An  act  was  passed  in 
June,  1837,  authorizing  them  to  be  funded,  to  the  extent  of  three 
millions.  In  a  few  months  that  amount  was  settled,  and  the  office 
closed.  In  January,  1839,  an  act  was  passed,  appointing  Commis- 
sioners to  examine  into  the  existing  claims,  and  issue  scrip  to  those 
who  should  prove  their  demands.  Claims  were  presented,  under  the 
act,  to  such  an  enormous  amount,  that  the  executive  ordered  the  office 
closed  in  the  April  following.  What  amount  was  funded,  in  that 
short  period,  has,  I  believe,  never  been  made  public-r-at  least,  there 
has  never  been,  to  my  knowledge,  any  official  report  of  the  amount, 
made  by  the  government.  For  the  purpose  of  my  calculation,  I  will 
place  the  amount  of  scrip  issued  under  the  act  at  three  millions ; 
although  there  is  good  reason  to  believe,  from  the  manner  in  which 
the  office  was  closed,  that  a  much  larger  amount  was  issued.  In  No- 
vember, 1836,  an  act  was  passed,  authorizing  a  loan  of  five  millions. 
Commissioners  were  appointed  to  proceed  to  the  United  States  and 
Europe,  to  eflfect  the  loan.  Only  a  small  amount  was  obtained.  In 
May,  1838,  another  act  was  passed,  authorizing  a  loan  of  five  mil- 
lions, under  provisions  similar  to  the  preceding  act.  Gov.  Hamilton, 
of  South  Carolina,  was  one  of  the  Commissioners  for  effecting  it. 
Great  exertions  were  made,  and  several  acts  were  subsequently  passed 
by  Congress,  to  facilitate  the  action  of  the  Commissioners.  How  far, 
or  to  what  extent,  they  were  successful,  has  never  been  promulgated. 
I  have,  however,  good  reasons  to  believe  that  the  government  was 
involved,  in  cash  received,  scrip  issued,  and  expenses  incurred,  at 
least  one  million.  By  an  act,  passed  December,  1836,  the  Executive 
was  authorized  to  issue  scrip  to  meet  appropriations,  to  the  extent  of 
one  million.     By  an  &c*  ;    -^"d  in  June,  1837,  the  Executive  was 


31 

authorized  to  issue  promissory  notes,  to  the  extent  of  five  hundred 
thousand  dollars — in  November,  of  the  same  year,  two  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand  dollars — and  in  May,  1838,  to  an  amount  sufficient  to 
meet  the  accumulated  interest  upon  the  public  debt.  How  much  was 
thus  issued,  for  interest,  is  unknown.  It  could  not,  however,  have  been 
less  than  five  hundred  thousand  dollars.  Another  act  was  passed,  in 
the  same  month,  authorizing  an  additional  issue  of  one  million,  to 
meet  appropriations.  By  an  act,  passed  January,  1839,  a  loan  of  one 
million  was  authorized,  to  be  made  in  the  United  Slates.  This  loan 
is  said  to  have  been  effected,  at  an  enormous  sacrifice.  In  the  same 
month,  an  issue  of  notes  was  also  made,  by  act  of  Congress,  of  two 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars.  From  the  year  1836  to  1840, 
sundry  acts  were  passed,  authorizing  the  issue  of  scrip  and  treasury 
notes,  to  meet  individual  claims,  in  all  amounting  to  about  five  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars.  Upon  all  these  amounts,  the  government  have 
been  paying  an  interest  of  ten  per  cent,  for  an  average  of  seven 
t^years.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  amount  of  debts,  drawn  from 
*^the  known  official  acts  of  Texas,  is  twelve  millions  of  dollars — and 
the  interest  on  the  same,  allowing  the  average  of  seven  years,  eight 
millions  four  hundred  thousand.     Making  the  enormous  indebtedness 

*-^f  TWENTY    MILLIONS    FOUR    HUNDRED    THOUSAND    DOLLARS.       It    may 

be,  that  a  small  part  of  these  appropriations  of  promissory  notes  were 
re-issues — but  it  does  not  appear  that  such  was  the  fact,  in  the  acts 
authorizing  them.  It  is,  also,  well  known,  both  in  Texas  and  the 
States,  that  there  are  demands  against  the  Government,  to  a  large 
amount,  which  have  never  been  funded — and  which,  of  course,  do  not 
appear  in  any  of  her  official  acts  or  statements.  To  what  extent  they 
will  be  brought  forward,  in  case  of  their  assumption  by  our  govern- 
ment, is  uncertain.  They  may,  however,  with  certainty,  be  set  down 
at  several  millions. 

The  question  will  naturally  be  asked — How  is  it,  that,  in  so  short  a 
contest — carried  on  principally  by  volunteers  from  these  United  Statesy 
who  were  never  paid,  to  any  extent,  except  in  the  certificates  of 
;bounty  land — that  such  an  immense  debt  should  have  been  contracted  ? 
/Texas  commenced  the  contest  without  the  materials  of  war,  money, 
or  credit.  These  facts  were  well  known.  The  first  issues  of  paper 
made  were  negotiated  at  a  large  discount.  To  purchase  the  muni- 
tions of  war,  she  was  obliged  to  pay,  in  her  paper,  a  price  increased 
equivalently  to  the  extent  of  depreciation  of  that  paper.  This  paper, 
as  it  increased  in  the  market,  became  of  less  and  less  value.  So 
great  was  its  depreciation,  that  it  could  not  be  used  at  all,  in  purchases. 
The  government  was  compelled,  through  agents,  to  sell  its  own 
promissory  notes  in  the  market,  in  many  instances  at  a  discount  of 
fifty  to  seventy  per  cent.,  to  meet  its  ordinary  expenses.  In  this  way„ 
two  or  three  prices  were  paid  for  every  article  purchased,  either  in 
Texas  or  this  country.  From  the  want  of  an  organized  system  ot 
finance,  the  most  profuse  and  profligate  expenditures  were  made,  in 
many  instances  by  assumed  authority,  which  the  government  have 


32 

since,  from  circumstances,  been  compelled  to  confirm.  It  will,  also, 
♦^e  borne  in  mind  that,  at  no  period  since  the  revolution  have  the 
revenues  of  the  country  been  equal  to  the  civil  expenditures  of  the 
government — that  her  debt  has  been,  and  is  now,  continually  increas- 
ing in  amount — and  that  it  has  not  been  the  policy,  nor  for  the  inter- 
est of  Texas,  that  the  amount  of  her  indebtedness  should  be  publicly 
known.  Thus  no  farther  exertions  have  been  made  to  ascertain  the 
•amount,  than  were  absolutely  necessary  to  answer  the  calls  of  her 
■creditors.  This  statement  of  the  public  debt  of  the  territory  proposed 
to  be  annexed,  is  not  given  in  a  spirit  of  exaggeration,  nor  as  an 
■argument  against  annexation.  I  have  no  fears  of  its  ever  being 
assumed  by  our  government,  until  the  amount  is  distinctly  ascertained, 
or  the  amount  to  be  assumed  is  definitely  settled.  In  the  present 
position  of  the  question,  it  can  have  but  little  weight  in  opposition  to 
the  measure.  As  a  means,  however,  of  gratifying  public  curiosity, 
it  may,  even  in  its  dry  details,  be  read  with  interest  by  those  who  are 
seeking  for  light  upon  this  dark  question. 

There  is  one  fact,  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  public  debt  of 
Texas,  which,  in  case  of  the  assumption  of  any  part  of  it  by  these 
United  States,  becomes  a  matter  of  serious  consideration.  The  issues 
of  the  promissory  notes  of  Texas,  and  that  part  of  the  funded  debt 
predicated  upon  stock  issued  under  the  acts  of  June,  1837,  and 
January,  1839,  are  but  to  a  very  small  extent  in  the  hands  of  the 
■original  holders.  The  uncertainty  of  the  redemption  of  the  notes, 
and  the  poverty  of  the  original  holders  of  demands,  have  caused 
them  to  be  sacrificed  for  a  trifling  sum  ;  and  almost  the  entire  amount 
of  the  stock  thit  has  been  issued  is  now  in  the  hands  of  speculators, 
who  have  paid  but  a  small  per  centage  upon  the  facf^  of  their  cer- 
tificates. How  far  it  may  be  considered  an  act  of  justice  to  pay  the 
full  amount,  and  the  large  interest  that  has  accumulated,  when  it  was 
aiever  contemplated,  at  the  time  of  their  issue,  that  they  were  predi- 
cated upon  anything  but  the  public  faith  of  Texas,  I  leave  to  the 
friends  of  Annexation  to  determine. 


LETTER   XI 


February  13. 

Sir  : — I  have  observed,  in  many  of  the  public  documents  connected 
with  this  question,  and  in  the  speeches  delivered  bath  in  and  out  of 
Congress,  that  much  importance  is  attached  to  the  idea  of  the  Rioj 
del  Norte  being  the  natural  boundary  of  these  United  States.  Gen. 
Jackson,  in  his  zeal  to  consummate  this  act  of  party  frenzy,  hasf' 
advanced  the  opinion  that  the  acquisition  of  Texas  is  absolutel)^^ 


33 

necessary  to  the  security  of  the  Southern  States.  Unfortunately  for 
the  quiet  and  welfare  of  our  country,  his  opinions  have  influenced 
thousands  of  voters.  At  the  time  of  the  negotation  of  the  treaty  for 
the  cession  of  the  Floridas,  when  in  the  full  possession  of  those 
brilliant  military  talents,  with  which  he  was  so  eminently  endowed, 
he  avowed  the  belief,  {in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Monroe,)  that  the  South  and 
West  had  nothing  to  fear  from  an  invasion,  by  the  way  of  Texas, 
Why  his  opinions  have  been  so  materially  changed,  in  so  short  a 
period,  we  are  not  informed.  There  has  certainly  been  no  change 
in  the  topography  of  the  country — and,  in  relative  position,  the  South 
has  more  ample  means  of  defence  now  than  she  had  then. 

I  propose  to  devote  this  letter  to  the  discussion  of  the  policy  of 
seeking  the  Rio  del  Norte  as  a  boundary.  My  remarks,  at  this  time, 
will  be  confined  to  the  actual  position  of^the  two  countries.  No 
movement  has,  as  yet,  been  made  in  Texas,  to  form  an  alliance,  or 
commercial  connection,  with  any  European  power,  giving  that  power 
exclusive  privileges ;  nor  have  we  at  present  any  good  reason  to 
suppose  that  such  is  her  intention.  The  present  question,  therefore, 
is — Is  the  acquisition  of  the  present  territory  of  Texas  necessary  for*- 
the  future  welfare  or  security  of  the  Southern  and  Western  States.'    *-" 

I  will  suppose,  to  illustrate  my  remarks,  that  7'exas  has  been 
already  annexed — and  that  the  Rio  del  Norte,  and  a  line  running 
due  north,  from  its  sources,  to  the  42d  degree  of  north  latitude,  is  our 
boundary.  What  would  then  be  the  posilion  of  these  United  States, 
in  case  of  a  war  with  any  of  the  large  maritime  powers  of  Europe .'' 
We  have  added  to  our  now  comparatively  defenceless  seaboard,  three 
hundred  and  forty  miles  in  extent,  along  the  whole  line  of  which 
there  is  not  a  single  port  in  which  one  of  our  smallest  sloops-of-war 
couldfind  shelter  from  an  enemy — a  coast  so  indented  with  bayous 
and  rivers,  that  it  could  not  be  sufficiently  fortified  to  protect  it 
from  the  ravages  of  an  enemy,  without  appropriating  our  entire  rev- 
enue for  the  next  ten  years. 

From  the  character  of  the  climate,  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  there  can  never  be  a  white  population  on  the  coast  sufficient 
for  its  defence.  The  necessity  and  value  of  slave  labor  will  forever 
give  superiority  in  numbers  to  the  African  race. ,  The  attempts  that 
would  inevitably  be  made,  by  an  enemy,  to  excite  such  a  population 
to  revolt,  would  require  a  stationary  force  greater  than  would  be 
required  for  the  defence  of  our  whole  Atlantic  coast.  Let  us  turn  to 
the  Rio  del  Norte — what  is  our  position  there.?  That  river  is  navi- 
gable, for  steamboats  drawing  from  four  to  five  feet  of  water,  nearly 
seven  hundred  miles.  Its  western  bank  will  be  in  possession  of 
Mexico,  a  nation  ever  ready  to  sacrifice  the  integrity  of  her  territory 
to  the  highest  bidder.  The  probability  of  an  enemy  obtaining  foothold 
in  that  country,  from  which  to  annoy  us,  (considering  the  character 
of  the  government  and  population,)  is  infinitely  greater  than  that  from 
Texas,  as  an  independent  nation.  The  past  political  history  of 
Mexico  warrants  the  belief  that,  were  our  territory  on  the  Gulf 
5 


34 

contiguous  to  hers,  any  of  the  large  powers  of  Europe,  at  war  with 
us,  could,  without  difficulty,  negotiate  for  a  passage  through,  or  the 
establishment  of  depots  within  her  territory.  The  Rio  Grande  del 
Norte  is  a  shallow  stream,  that  can  be  forded  by  an  invading  army 
through  nearly  its  whole  extent.  To  defend  its  passage  it  would 
require  a  line  of  posts  of  at  least  five  hundred  miles  in  extent.  If  the 
reader  will  run  his  eye  over  the  map,  he  will  perceive  that  the  course 
of  the  river  is  nearly  parallel  with  the  present  boundary  of  the  United 
States — and  that,  were  the  western  bank  in  possession  of  an  enemy, 
our  extreme  Western  States  would  be  in  as  much  peril  as  the  South- 
ern— and,  perhaps,  more — as  the  South  could  only  be  invaded  by 
way  of  the  Red  river,  while  the  West  offers  an  access  by  land, 
through  the  rolling  lands  North  of  that  river.  The  brief  remarks  I 
have  made,  in  regard  to  the  defence  of  such  a  frontier,  apply  whh 
equal  force  to  smuggling,  and  the  escape  of  runaway  negroes. 
Along  such  a  line  of  frontier,  it  is  evident  that  neither  could  be  pre- 
vented. With  Texas,  as  an  independent  nation,  arrangements  could 
be  made  to  stop  smuggling,  and  insure  the  recovery  of  blacks;  while 

-with  Mexico,  as  a  non-slaveholding  country,  every  slave  that  crossed 
the  river  would  be  lost. 

.  1  will  now  proceed  to  an  examination  of  the  present  boundary  of 
^  these  United  States,  and  endeavor  to  show  its  superiority,  in  all  the 
points  under  which  the  friends  of  Annexation  present  that  of  the  Rio 
Grande  del  Norte.  First,  in  regard  to  its  military  position,  as  facil- 
itating the  means  of  defence  for  the  South  and  West.  The  land  on 
the  eastern  bank  of  the  Sabine  river,  and  from  it  to  the  Mississippi 
and  Red  river,  is  low  and  alluvial,  intersected,  in  all  directions,  with 
creeks  and  bayous,  and  impassable  by  an  invading  army.  The 
Southern  States  can  only  be  approached,  through  Texas,  by  way  of 
the  Red  river.  There  does  not,  now,  exist  any  other  internal  com- 
munication, by  which  an  army  of  one  thousand  men,  without  artillery, 
could  be  transported  to  the  Mississippi.  If,  then,  the  Red  river  is  the 
only  possible  point  at  which  an  invading  army  could  reach  us — or,  at 
least,  an  army  of  such  force  as  to  cause  a  moment's  apprehension — 
and  that  such  is  the  fact  no  individual,  having  the  least  knowledge  of 
the  topography  of  the  country,  will  deny — what  have  we  to  fear 
from  such  an  ;nvasion  ?  Let  us  suppose  that  England  had  possession 
of  all  Texas,  and  was  about  to  invade  us  whh  an  army  of  fifty  thou- 
sand men — suppose  that  they  have  reached  the  Red  river,  after  a 
laborious  march  of  four  hundred  miles  from  the  sea  coast,  how  are 
they  to  be  transported  down  the  river?  The  impediments  in  the 
navigation  would  prevent  the  use  of  steamboats,  except  of  the  small- 
est class ;  and  so  large  a  number  as  would  be  required  could  not  be 
built  within  one  year.  Should  they  succeed  in  reaching  the  Missis- 
sippi, they  must  ascend  or  descend  the  river  by  water — and,  unless 
they  had  the  superiority  upon  that  element,  they  would  be  utterly 
powerless. 

Now,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  our  means  of  resistance.     The 


35 

mouth  of  the  Red  river  can  be  so  fortified  as  to  prevent  the  passage 
of  any  force  that  may  attempt  to  descend  it.  We  have  now  on  the 
Mississippi,  and  its  tributaries,  over  six  hundred  steamboats;  and  can 
bring  to  the  mouth  of  the  Red  river,  in  ten  days,  two  hundred 
thousand  men.  Any  military  man  can  see,  at  a  glance,  as  readily 
as  General  Jackson  saw,  in  1820,  that  an  enemy,  no  matter  what 
might  be  his  force,  would  be  perfectly  at  our  mercy  in  such  a 
position. 

Let  us  now  look,  for  a  moment,  at  the  two  prominent  grievances, 
set  forth  in  such  strong  light  by  John  Tyler,  and  for  the  relief  of 
which,  annexation  is,  in  his  opinion,  so  desirable.  I  mean,  the  escape 
of  negroes,  and  the  prevention  of  smuggling.  There  is,  now,  but 
one  means  of  conveyance  for  slaves  who  may  attempt  to  escape  to 
Texas,  (that  is,  by  water)  either  in  sail  vessels,  by  sea,  or  in  steam- 
boats up  the  Red  river.  Both  these  are  guarded  against,  by  laws  of 
so  penal  a  character,  that  not  two  cases  occur  in  a  year — and,  when 
they  do  occur,  the  government  of  Texas  immediately  surrenders  them 
to  the  owners,  even  without  an  official  requisition.  With  the  Rio 
Grande  as  a  boundary,  they  have  but  to  wade  across  a  narrow, 
shallow  stream,  and  they  are  free.  Now,  they  have  but  two  ave- 
nues of  escape,  and  those  doubly  guarded.  Then,  they  will  have 
some  eight  hundred  miles  of  unguarded  frontier.  The  plea  of  pre- 
venting smuggling  is  equally  fallacious.  The  only  points  in  Texas, 
at  which  it  has  ever  been,  or  ever  will  probably  be  attempted,  are  on 
the  Sabine  or  Red  river.  From  the  expense  and  labor  of  trans- 
portation from  the  sea  coast,  no  European  manufactures  will  ever  be 
brought  by  the  Red  river.  What  there  can  be  of  the  productions 
of  Mexico,  or  Northern  Texas,  to  smuggle,  I  leave  the  reader  to 
determine.  The  only  way  in  which  it  can  be  effected,  on  the  Sabine, 
is  by  water — a  means  of  conveyance  always  under  the  control  of  the 
Custom  House.  That  part  of  the  river  that  can  be  used  for  such  a 
purpose  is  limited,  and  easily  guarded.  The  avenues  for  the  intro- 
duction of  goods  are  few — and  any  invasion  of  the  law  easily  detected. 
To  remedy  this  evil — which,  if  it  exists,  exists  but  to  a  trifling  extent 
— we  are  to  substitute  a  river  navigable  to  ten  times  the  extent,  and 
increase  the  facilities  of  smuggling  a  thousand  fold.  I  have  thus 
attempted  to  show  that  our  present  boundary  is,  for  all  purposes  of^ 
National  security,  not  only  the  best  that  could  have  been  selected,;^ 
but,  in  fact,  the  true  natural  boundary.  At  the  time  of  its  selection, 
the  character  of  the  soil  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Sabine  was 
unknown  ;  had  it  have  been  known  a  more  favorable  selection  could 
not  have  been  made.  Nature  has  given  us  a  wall  of  defence  upon  ,^ 
our  southern  frontier,  more  efficient  than  the  art  of  man  could  devise. 
While  we  remain  within  that  wall,  we  shall  be  safe  and  united. 
Overleap  it,  and  all  may  be  lost. 


36 
LETTER   XII. 


February  15. 


-      Sir  : — In  my  last  letter  I  endeavored  to  show  that  the  extension  of 

vour  territory  beyond  our  present  boundary  would  have  the  effect  of 
weakening  the  defensive  powers  of  the  Southern  States.  As  I  stated, 
at  the  commencement  of  the  letter,  my  remarks  were  predicated  oa 
the  present  relative  position  of  the  two  countries.     That  it  would  be 

^more  advantageous  to  these  United  States,  that  Texas  should  remain 
an  indept'ndent  republic,  than  to  have  her  return  under  the  govern- 
ment of  Mexico,  is  a  position  that  I  think  no  one  will  question.  It 
^appears  to  me   equally  evident,  that  it  is  more  for  our  interest,  in 

^every  point  of  view,  to  allow  her  to  remain  as  she  is,  than  to  annex 
her  territory  to  ours.     But  the  question  is  often  asked, — can  she  sup- 
port her  independence  ?     Can  she,  under  her  present  debt,  and  em-\' 
barrassment,  maintain  her  national  existence,  without  seeking  foreign^ 
protection  ?     I  am  aware  that,  among  our  most  prominent  rpen,  there 
are  many  who  sincerely  believe  that  she  must,  from  necessity,  seek* 
a  European  alliance,  should  we  refuse   her  admission  into  the  Union 
— and  that  such  an  alliance  would  be  dangerous,  not  only  to  our  com- 1 
mercial  prosperity,  but  to   the  future   security  of  the  South.     It  is  a 
difficult  subject,  to  attempt  to  discuss  the  probable  policy  that  a  na- 
tion, situated  as  she   is,  will   pursue.     It  is,  however,  but  fair  to  pre- 
sume that,  under  any  and  all  circumstances,  she   will   maintain  a 
distinct  national  character,  unless  subverted  by  a  superior   power. 

"^The  strength  of  Texas  lies  in  the  weakness  of  Mexico.  "^Unaided, 
Mexico  can  never  recover  her  power  over  her  lost  territory.  The 
history  of  both,  for  the  last  nine  years,  has  amply  demonstrated  that 
such  is  the  fact.  The  public  debt  of  Texas,  and  the  expense  of  con- 
stantly providing  for  the  defence  of  her  frontier  settlements,  against 
the  incursions  of  the  Mexicans  and  Indians,  are  now  the  only  imped- 
iments to  her  civil  and  commercial  prosperity.  That  she  will  be 
eventually  compelled  to  repudiate  a  part,  if  not  the  whole,  of  her 
public  debt,  is  certain — and  the  sooner  she  does  it,  the  better  it  will 
be  for  her  future  prosperity.  As  it  regards  the  existing  war,  what- 
ever may  be  the  result  of  the  present  question  of  Annexation,  Mex- 
ico will  be  compelled,  at  no  distant  day,  by  the  great  Christian  pow- 
ers, to  acknowledge  her  independence.  So  confident  am  I  of  this, 
that  I  believe  it  would  long  since  have  been  accomplished,  but  for 
the  intervention  of  the  question  of  Annexation.  Texas,  of  her  own 
free  will,  will  never  enter  into  any  foreign  alliance  that  will  com- 
promise her  nationality,  especially  with  France  or  England.  Such  a 
movement  is  not  consistent  with  the  character  of  her  population,  nor 
would  her  proximity  to  us  allow  her  to  endanger  her  peace  by  such 
{  a  measure.  No  foreign  power,  excepting  these  United  States,  could 
obtain  a  footing  in  Texas,  except  by  force.  Is  there,  then,  any  prob- 
ability of  an  attempt,  on  the  part  of  England,  or  France,  to  obtain 


37 

possession  of  Texas  ?     With  nations,  as  with  individuals,  there  must 
be  prominent  motives  for  prominent  actions.     One  of  the  motives 
presumed  to  actuate  the  powers  named,  and  which  has  been  exhib- 
ited in  a  strong  light  before  the  people,  is  the  desire,  on  their  part,  to 
obtairrthe  commandT'oriTie"^       of  Mexico.     Let  us,  for  a  moment, 
lookVt~the  positroiii  of  Texas,  and  examine  her  facilities  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  naval-depots.     The  whole  coast  of  Texas  is  formed  by 
aUuvial  deposits,  and  sands  thrown  up  by  the  action  of  the  sea.     It  is 
uniformly  low,  and   dangerous  to  approach,  and  swept  by  irregular 
and  dangerous  currents.     The  quicksands  thrown  up  by  the  action  of 
the  waves,  form  uncertain  and  dangerous  bars  at  the  entrance  of  all 
her  rivers  and  harbors.     The  coast  is  also  subject  to  sudden  and  vio- 
lent gales,  which  render  it  dangerous  for  ships  of  any  size  to  anchor 
in  the  offing,  except  at  particular  seasons.  '  The   port  of  Galveston, 
the  best  in  the  republic,  will  not  admit  a  ship,  under  the  most  favor- 
able circumstances,  drawing  over  twelve  and  a  half  feet  of  water — 
nor   is  it  at  any  time  considered  perfectly  safe,  with  a  draft  of  over 
eleven  feet.     Galveston   Island,  upon   which   the  city  is  situated — a 
low  sand  bank,  its  highest  elevation  not  three  feet  above  the  level  of 
the  sea — forms  the  only  protection  to  the  harbor,  from  the  east.     On 
the  north,  a  shoal  of  sand,  level  with  the  water,  called  Pelican  Island^ 
forms  the  only  protection  from  the  Northers^  which  have  a  sweep 
down  the  bay,  of  thirty-five  miles.     A  bar  crosses  the   bay,  twenty 
miles  up,  having  upon  it  only  four  feet  of  water.     The  water,  upon 
each  side  of  the  bay,  is  shoal — being  not  over  four  to  six  feet. 
Galveston  Island  is  the  only  position  in  the  bay,  where  a  Naval  De- 
pot could  be  located — and  that  is  every  year  liable  to  an  overflow  of 
the  sea.     No  arrangement  can  ever  be   made  to  safely  haul  down, 
and  repair,  the   hull  of  a  vessel,  from  the  continual  shifting  of  the 
oand  on  the  shore  of  the  Island.     The  bar,  at  the  entrance  of  the 
harbor,  is  formed  of  a  lively  quicksand,  which  has,  thus  far,  proved 
the  total  destruction  of  every  vessel  that  has  grounded  upon  it.     The 
bar,  at  Sabine  bay,  has  only  six  feet  of  water — the  port  at  the  west 
of  Galveston  Island,  seven  feet — the  mouth  of  the  Brassos  river,  five 
feet — Matagorda  bay,  eight  feet — Aransaso   bay,  ten  feet — and  the 
mouth  of  the  Rio  Grande,  eight  feet  of  water. 

Such  are  the  facilities,  offered  by  the  coast  of  Texas,  for  a  naval 
station.  Will  any  man,  of  the  least  judgment  in  such  matters,  coun- 
tenance the  idea  that  the  possession  of  these  ports,  by  any  maritime 
power,  would  give  that  power  command  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  ? 
The  only  nation  that  could  possibly  be  supposed  to  desire  such  a  pos- 
session, is  England — and  the  friends  of  Annexation  have  delusively 
held  up  this  idea,  for  the  purpose  of  making  political  capital,  until 
they  have,  apparently,  come  to  the  belief  that  England  seriously  en- 
tertains the  intention  of  obtaining  Texas  for  such  a  purpose.  Let  us 
look,  for  a  moment,  at  the  situation  of  England,  in  regard  to  her 
naval  superiority  in  the  Gulf — and  then  ask  the  question,  is  the  pos- 
session of  Texas  necessary  or  even  desirable  to  her  ?     At  the  South. 


\ 


39 

she  has  the  Island  of  Jamaica — at  the  North,  Bermuda — in  the  cen- 
tre, the  ports  of  Cuba,  which  she  can,  at  her  pleasure,  command. 
On  the  Western  shore  of  the  Gulf,  she  has  the  port  of  Belize,  Hon- 
duras, and  a  port  on  the  Mosquito  shore,  lately  ceded  to  her,  which  is 
said,  by  good  authority,  to  be  one  of  the  best  in  the  world,  and  capa- 
ble of  riding  at  anchor  all  the  navies  of  Europe.  So  far  is  she  from 
seeking  new  possessions  in  the  Gulf,  thai  she  has,  for  the  last  thirty 
years,  neglected  her  own  colony  of  Honduras — a  colony,  capable, 
by  the  patronage  of  the  government,  of  raising  a  large  part  of  the 
cotton  she  consumes.  What  possible  reasons  can  she  have,  then,  to 
desire  the  possession  of  Texas  ?  I  think  I  have  clearly  shown  that, 
as  a  naval  position,  it  would  rather  weaken  than  strengthen  her  power. 
I  can  see  no  reason,  on  her  part,  for  such  a  wish,  except  it  be  the  de- 
sire to  obtain  a  territory  that  might,  in  time,  render  her  independent 
of  these  United  States,  in  her  supplies  of  cotton.  To  put  that  ques- 
tion, at  once,  at  rest,  it  is  only  necessary  to  state  that  a  vast  majority 
oflhe  Cotion  Lands  of  Texas  are  of  no  value,  without  slave  labor — 
and  that,  in  the  possession  of  England,  and  cuhivated  by  free  labor, 
Texas  can  never  compete  with  the  Southern  States,  in  the  production 
of  cotton.  So  strongly  am  I  persuaded  of  the  correctness  of  this 
opinion,  that  I  believe  it  would  be  most  decidedly  for  the  interest  of 
the  South  to  have  slavery  abolished  in  Texas,  and  thereby  secure  to 
themselves  the  monopoly  of  cotton  in  the  European  markets. 


LETTER   XIII. 

Fehruarp  22. 

Sir  : — In  the  several  letters  I  have  presented  to  the  public,  I  have, 
as  I  stated  in  m^  first  number  I  should  do,  confined  myself  to  an  ex- 
position of  facts;  giving  only  such  slight  illustrations  as  I  deemed 
absolutely  necessary  to  a  clear  understanding  of  my  meaning.  The 
probable  effect  of  annexation,  upon  the  future  political  history  of 
our  country,  has  been  so  thoroughly  discussed,  by  the  ablest  men  of 
our  nation,  that  any  attempt,  on  my  part,  to  advise  or  counsel,  might 
well  be  considered  as  presumption.  I  commenced  these  letters 
under  the  impression  that  I  could  lay  before  the  public  information 
upon  this  all-absorbing  question,  which  could  not  be  derived  from 
any  other  source.  The  answer  of  the  Executive  to  the  call  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  for  information  in  regard  to  the  debt  and 
public  lands  of  Texas,  has  already  proved  that  my  impressions  were 
correct.  I  have  but  little  fear,  whatever  may  be  the  result  of  this 
question,  that  any  of  the  statements  I  have  made  will  ever  be  ques- 
tioned or  contradicted. 


39 

It  is  my  intention,  in  this  letter,  to  deviate  somewhat  from  the 
course  I  have  laid  down.  The  subject,  however,  requires  it — and  I 
trust  that  will  be  a  sufficient  excuse.  The  subject  of  slavery,  tcv 
which  I  am  about  to  allude,  as  involved  in  the  question  of  Annexa- 
tion, is  one  of  fearful  importance  to  the  ^Free  States.  It  has  been 
presented  to  the  public,  in  its  general  bearing  upon  our  social  insti- 
tutions, in  so  clear  and  strong  a  light,  that  if  we  could  divest  the 
public  mind  of  political  bias,  we  should  hardly  find  a  voice  raised  in 
its  defence.  There  is  one  point,  however,  in  which  it  has  not  yet 
been  exhibited — a  point,  too,  which  has  a  strong  bearing,  not  only 
upon  the  present  question,  but  upon  the  final  extinction  of  slavery 
within  the  Union.  I  allude  to  the  facilities  for  its  unlawful  increase 
in  the  territory  of  Texas.  In  Texas  there  are,  at  the  present  time, 
from  twenty-five  to  thirty  thousand  slaves.  Nearly  that  number  has 
been  returned,  as  taxable  property.  How  came  they  there  1  The 
Constitution  prohibits  their  introduction,  except  from  these  United 
States.  Has  that  number  been  transported  from  the  South  1  It  is 
in  the  power  of  Congress  to  obtain  information  on  this  point,  at 
least.  Let  them  apply  to  the  Collectors  of  New  Orleans,  Mobile 
and  Charleston,  and  ascertain  the  number  that  have  been  cleared 
from  those  ports.  It  will  be  found  that  not  one-third  of  the  number 
now  there,  ever  saw  these  States. 

Prior  to  the  revolution,  there  were,  legally,  no  slaves  in  Texas. 
Immediately  subsequent  to  that  event,  the  public  returns  rated  the 
number  at  about  five  thousand.  Can  it,  for  a  moment,  be  believed 
that,  in  seven  years,  the  natural  and  imported  increase  could  exceed 
twenty  thousand  ?  To  answer  the  question  how  they  came  there,  I 
will  refer  to  facts  well  known  in  Texas.  A  direct  trade  in  slaves 
has  been  carried  on  between  Cuba  and  Texas ;  in  the  early  part  of 
her  history,  almost  openly — latterly,  in  secret.  Two  full  cargoes 
were  obtained  in  Havana  in  1836,  and  landed  in  Texas,  under  the 
following  circumstances  :  It  is  the  practice  of  the  British  Govern- 
ment to  apprentice,  for  a  limited  time,  the  slaves  captured  and  car- 
ried into  Cuba.  These  apprentices  were,  under  some  pretence,  puE^. 
chased  at  a  trifling  price,  and  shipped  to  Texas.  There  they  vvene, 
sold  as  slaves — nominally  for  a  given  time,  but  in  fact  for  life — and 
they  and  their  descendants  are  now  slaves  forever.  To  what  extent 
the  trade  has  been  carried  on,  can  only  be  judged  from  circum- 
stances. The  immense  profit  that  it  offered,  and  the  facilities  of 
landing  them  on  the  coast,  would  lead  to  the  belief  that  it  has  been 
practiced  to  a  great  extent.  If  one  can  judge  by  the  number  of 
fresh  negroes  to  be  found  upon  the  plantations  in  Texas,  the  impor- 
tation must  have  been  large  indeed.  From  this  source,  alone,  could 
have  been  realized  the  great  increase  of  slave  population  in  that 
country.  As  it  can  be  made  a  matter  of  perfect  demonstration  what 
number  have  been  exported  from  the  South,  and  as  there  were  origin- 
ally no  slaves  there,  it  can  be  ascertained,  at  short  notice,  should 
Congress  require  it,  what  number  of  negroes,  not  natives  of  these 


United  States,  would  be  brought  into  the  Union  by  Annexation.     I 
would  not  be  understood  as  implicating  the  government  of  Texas  in 
this  piratical  introduction  of  negroes,  as  I  know  strong  measures 
have  been  constantly  used  to  prevent  it.     Nor  do  1  believe  her  citi- 
zens have,  to  any  great  extent,  countenanced  the  trade — it  having 
been  principally  perpetrated  by  aliens.     The  fact,  however,  that  the 
negroes  are  now  in  the  country,  is  sufficient — and  the  proof  that  no-^ 
legal  restraint  could  prevent  their  introduction,  is  a  strong  argument, 
against  the  admission,  to  our  Union,  of  a  territory  so  open  to  the  \ 
gratification  of  piratical  cupidity. 

There  is,  also,  another  way  in  which  negroes  have  been,  and  may 
be  now,  legally  introduced  into  Texas  from  other  sources  than  this 
country.  By  the  existing  treaty  between  France  and  that  country,, 
France  is  entitled  to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  which  Texas  has 
granted,  or  may  grant,  to  the  most  favored  nations.  By  this  treaty,, 
which  was  formerly  ratified  by  the  authorities  of  Texas,  negroes  can 
be  introduced  from  the  French  Colonies,  in  the  same  manner  they 
are  now  introduced  from  our  Southern  States.  I  may  be  answered 
that  the  Constitution  expressly  provides  that  slaves  shall  only  be 
introduced  into  Texas  from  these  United  States,  and  that  the 
treaty  stipulation  would  be  void  as  against  the  Constitution.  I 
answer  that  it  was  distinctly  understood,  at  the  time  of  the  negotiai- 
tion,  that  this  privilege  would  accrue  to  the  French  Colonies;  and 
it  was  one  of  the  inducements  offered  by  Texas  to  the  French  Gov- 
ernment, to  obtain  the  acknowledgment  of  her  independence.  All< 
are  aware  of  the  desire  of  France  to  extinguish  slavery  in  her  colo- 
nies ;  and  that  the  only  impediment  to  its  accomplishment  is  the 
amount  of  indemnification  money  required.  A  market  that  would 
drain  off  the  blacks  from  her  West  India  possessions  and  facilitate 
emancipation,  was  a  desideratum  not  to  be  lost.  The  fact  that  this 
privilege  would  be  granted,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty,  was 
well  understood  in  Texas,  at  the  time  of  its  ratification.  Its  un- 
constitutionality cannot  now  affect  the  existing  rights  of  France.  I 
am  not  aware  of  the  extent  to  which  blacks  have  been  introduced 
into  Texas,  from  the  French  Colonies,  but  I  have  good  reason  to 
believe  that  many  have  been  so  introduced. 

.  In  the  discussion  of  this  question,  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, the  argument  has  been  used,  that  in  the  admission  of  Texas, 
we  only  take  back  slaves  that  were  originally  from  these  States. 
The  fact  that  there  were  other  slaves  in  the  country,  and  in  much 
greater  number  than  those  shipped  from  our  slave  States,  appears 
never  to  have  entered  the  minds  of  the  opponents  of  the  measure. 
In  truth,  the  practical  effect  of  Annexation  upon  ihe  question  of  the 
extension  of  slavery,  has  been  lost  in  the  speculations  upon  slave 
representation.  To  illustrate  this  remark,  I  will  now  proceed  to 
show  the  facilities  that  will  arise  from  Annexation,  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  new  slaves.  Slave  property,  from  the  ease  with  which  it  can 
be  transported,  will  always  find  the  highest  market.     The  low  prices 


41 

at  which  such  properly  is  now  held  in  the  French  and  Spanish  Colo- 
nies, and  the  high  price  it  will  command  in  Texas,  should  she  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  Union,  will  open,  at  once,  an  illicit  trade  in  negroes. 
The  laws  of  these  United  States,  as  they  now  stand,  could  not  pre- 
vent it,  from  the  impossibility  of  carrying  them  into  execution.  As 
I  have  already  shown,  in  the  description  of  the  sea  coast  of  Texas, 
that  it  is  so  intersected  and  cut  up  by  bayous  and  inlets,  that  no  force 
that  could  be  employed,  could  prevent  such  a  trade.  Whole  cargoes 
could  be  landed,  by  boats,  in  a  single  night,  and  placed  beyond 
the  pursuit  of  a  naval  force,  before  morning.  The  whole  line  of 
coast,  from  Matagorda  Bay  to  the  Rio  Grande,  is  not  only  open  to 
such  a  trade,  but  invites  it,  from  the  absolute  security  it  offers  against 
detection  or  apprehension.  To  say  that  such  a  trade  would  not  be 
carried  on,  where  the  profits  offered  would  be  so  immense,  is  to  ar- 
gue against  all  experience.  Thousands  could  be  found,  even  of  our 
own  citizens,  depraved  enough  to  embark  in  it,  to  any  extent.  A  gain, 
the  whole  line  on  the  Rio  Grande  would  become  one  vast  slave  mar- 
ket. To  those  acquainted  with  the  revoking  system  by  which  per- 
sonal labor  is  held  in  Mexico,  and  the  absolute  degradation  in  which 
three  quarters  of  the  population  are  placed,  1  need  not  attempt  to 
show  that  every  facility  would  be  offered  to  such  a  trade,  and  that 
even  Mexican  citizens  would  often,  by  indirect  means,  be  sold  into 
slavery.  Let  us  look,  for  a  moment,  at  the  ease  with  which  such  a 
trade  could  be  carried  on.  A  cargo  of  freshly  imported  negroes 
could  be  obtained  in  Cuba,  under  cover  of  the  apprentice  system, 
with  the  avowed  intention  of  transporting  them  to  Mexico.  They 
are  landed  on  the  Mexican  Bank  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  marched 
into  the  interior.  The  laws  of  Mexico  would  guarantee  their  labor 
and  possession  to  the  speculator.  He  could  transport  them,  at  his 
pleasure,  over  the  river,  and  sell  them  under  indentures,  as  he  pur- 
chased them,  or  even  for  life.  In  either  case  they  would  eventually, 
with  their  descendants,  become  the  absolute  property  of  the  pur- 
chaser. Who  is  there,  under  such  circumstances,  to  contest  the  right 
of  the  master  to  his  slave  ?  Let  any  one  who  doubts  that  such  a 
trade  could  be  safely  and  profitably  carried  on,  look  into  the  laws  of 
Mexico,  affecting  master  and  servant.  Let  him  cast  his  eye  over  the 
map  of  the  country,  and  he  will  be  fully  satisfied.  Time  will  not 
permit  me  to  digress  from  the  subject,  more  fully  to  explain  my 
meaning  in  this  respect. 

I  may  be  asked  why  slaves  cannot  be  introduced  in  a  similar  man- 
ner, into  our  own  territory,  through  Texas,  even  should  she  remain 
separate  ?  I  answer,  that,from  the  fact  of  all  our  slaves  being  natives, 
they  could  be  immediately  detected  ;  besides,  the  value  of  slaves  in 
Texas  will  be,  for  many  years,  greater  than  in  these  United  States. 
6 


ifif ,,  .11.  fi 


^ 


LETTER    XIV. 

March  1. 

Sir  : — Should  Texas  continue  an  independent  nation,  the  fertility 
and  low  price  of  her  lands  would  render  slave  labor  of  greater  value 
than  it  ever  could  attain  in  the  Southern  States.  The  unsettled  state 
of  the  country  has,  alone,  prevented  an  immense  importation  of 
slaves.  For  the  last  five  y^^ars,  an  able-bodied  man  has  been  worth, 
in  Texas,  from  two  to  four  hundred  dollars  more  than  in  Louisiana. 
While  such  is  the  case,  no  one  can  doubt  that,  at  no  distant  period, 
Texas  would  so  drain  off  the  blacks  from  those  States  where  their 
labor  is  not  productive,  that  they  would  soon  become  free  States. 
Among  those  that  would  be  thus  operated  upon,  we  may  class  Dela- 
ware, Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Kentucky.  Such  an 
effect  would  be  experienced,  should  Texas  be  admitted  into  the  Union. 
But  the  result,  in  the  two  cases,  would  widely  differ.  The  addition 
of  four  slave  States  to  the  Union  would  give  a  permanency  to  the 
policy  of  slave  representation,  which  would  act  as  a  check  upon  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  those  States,  even,  which  might,  under  other 
circumstances,  be  desirous  of  the  measure  ;  as  they  would  hesitate 
to  throw  themselves,  by  the  act  of  abolition,  from  the  majority  into 
the  minority. 

Emigration  to  Texas,  as  a  separate  government,  would  be  repul- 
sive to  the  minds  of  thousands,  who  would  seek  it  as  an  El  Dorado^ 
if  admitted  as  a  part  of  our  Union.  In  one  case,  the  master  would 
alone  seek  a  price  and  a  market  for  his  slaves — while,  in  the  other, 
he  would  seek  a  more  favorable  location  for  them  and  himself.  In 
the  one  case,  free  would  gradually  take  the  place  of  slave  labor, 
without  materially  impoverishing  the  State — while,  in  the  other,  the 
lands  would  be  depopulated,  without  a  probability  of  a  substitution  of 
free  labor.  To  illustrate  this,  let  us  take  a  practical  view  of  the  ef- 
fects of  annexation  upon  a  single  State.  I  will  take,  for  example, 
one  of  the  most  ultra  in  the  measure.  South  Carolina.  How  many 
of  her  planters  would  expatriate  themselves,  by  emigrating  to  Texas, 
as  an  independent  nation  }  Not  one  in  a  thousand.  Admit  her  into 
the  Union,  and  the  face  of  things  is  to  them  materially  changed. 
"We  will  suppose  a  planter  has  five  hundred  acres  of  land,  and  one 
hundred  negroes — that  he  values  his  land  at  thirty  dollars  per  acre, 
and  his  slaves  at  five  hundred  dollars  each.  He  can  obtain  land  in 
Texas,  under  the  same  government  and  institutions,  of  treble  the  ac- 
tual value,  for  cultivation,  at  one  dollar  per  acre.  The  value  of  the 
labor  of  his  slaves  will  be  more  than  doubled,  by  the  quality  and 
value  of  their  production.  The  excess  in  value  of  the  land  which 
he  sells,  over  that  which  he  purchases,  he  can  invest  in  new  hands, 
and  immensely  increase  his  productive  capital.  Suppose  his  planta- 
tion incumbered,  as  most  of  them  are,  such  a  change  would  be  a 


43 

perfect  God-send  to  him.     Will  not  such  an  opportunity  be  improved 
by  all  the  young  and  enterprising  planters  of  the  State?     It  has  al- 
ready, under  the  unfavorable  circumstances  in  which  Texas  has  been 
placed,  been  improved  to  a  great  extent ;  and  most  probably  would 
be,  to  an  extent  that  would  beggar  the  State.     How  is  the  soil,  made 
vacant  by  emigration,  to  be   again  occupied  ?     Certainly  not  by  free 
labor,  while  the  State  continues  to   uphold  slavery.     Nor  will  it  be 
occupied  again   by  slave-holders,  for  they  cannot  compete  with  the 
productions  of  Texas.     It  must  lie  vacant,  and  the  State  be  propor- 
tionally impoverished.     These  remarks  apply,  with  equal  force,  to  all 
the  slave  States,  with  the  exception  of  Mississippi  and  Louisiana.     If. 
the  loss  of  the  most  valuable  part  of  the   population  of  these  States 
would  be  likely  to  abolish  or  ameliorate  slavery,  we  might  look  upon  ^ 
such  a  result  with  indifference — but  it  will  have  no  such  effect.     The 
preponderance  of  slave   representation,   even    under   such   circum- 
stances, will  be  maintained  at  any  cost.     The  shackles  of  party  will^^^ 
be  more  firmly  riveted  than  ever — and  the  South,  regardless  of  the  ^ 
actual  causes  of  her  depression,   will   continue  to  attribute   it  to  the  ^ 
prosperity  of  the  North,  acquired  at  her  expense — and  that  jealousy,  L- 
which  is  nowmarring  our  prospects  as  a  nation,  will  be  increased  a  *' 
hundred  fold. 
^    The  fact,  that  the  Annexation  of  Texas  will  materially  reduce  the 
value  of  real  properly  in  the  Southern  States,  appears  not  to  have  at- 
tracted the  attention  of  the  friends  of  the  measure — and  yet,  it  is  one 
that  should  have  great  weight.     I  conversed,  some  time  since,  with  a 
planter,  who,  about  three  years  previously,  had  sold  out  his  plantation 
in  Alabama,  and  settled  on  Caney  Creek,  in  Texas.     He  told  me  that 
he  had  sold  his  plantation  at  a  good  price,  for  negroes,  and  had  pur- 
chased his  present  land  at  two  dollars  per  acre.     In  his  present  loca- 
tion, he  could  raise  double   the   quantity  of  cotton,  and  of  a  better 
quality,  with  the  same  number  of  hands.     There  was  less  risk  in  the 
crop,  than  in  the  best  land  in  the  States  ;  and   the  climate  was  as  fa- 
vorable to  the  health   of  the  blacks  as  that  of  x\labama.     Some  of 
the  planters,  formerly  his  neighbors,  were  on   the  point  of  joining 
bim  ;  and  would  do  so  at  once,  if  Texas  was  annexed   to   the  States. 
There  is  but  little  doubt  that,  if  the  objection   of  locating  under  an- 
other government  was  removed,  thousands  of  our  Southern  planters 
would  remove,  with  their  slaves,  to  Texas.     The  effect,  upon  some 
of  our  Southern  States,  would  be  immense  ;  not  only  in  the  deprecia- 
tion of  the  value  of  land,  but  in  the  prostration  of  every  branch  of 
industry.     Among  a  free  white   population   such  difficulties  are  soon 
overcome,  by  the  elastic  industry  of  the  people — but,  in  a  slave  Slate, 
it  is  far  different.     Such  shocks  to  the   public  welfare  are  seldom,  if 
ever,  recovered  from.     These  views  of  the  effect  and  extent  of  emi- 
gration, in  case  of  annexation,  are  not  a  matter  of  speculation.     The 
past  history  of  the  settlement  of  Texas  is  sufficient  proof  that  they 
will  be  more  than  realized. 

The  next  point,  to  which  I  would  call  your  attention,  is  the  trade 


44 

of  Texas.  Much  has  been  said  on  the  policy  of  securing  that  mar- 
ket for  our  manufactures,  and  of  the  fear  that  England  may  secure 
to  herself  the  trade  of  that  country,  by  the  offer  of  commercial  priv- 
ileges. I  acknowledge,  not  only  the  policy,  but  the  necessity  of  our 
"^obtaining  the  market  of  Texas  for  our  manufactures — but,  will  the 
annexation  of  her  territory  to  this  Union  insure  the  consumption  of 
our  fabrics  to  a  greater  extent  than  she  would  consume  them  as  an 
independent  nation?  If  her  political  position  is  materially  to  affect 
her  consumption,  the  friends  of  annexation  should  show  how,  and  in 
what  manner — and  yet,  we  hear  nothing  from  them,  but  mere  asser- 
tion. If  Texas  was  in  a  position  to  admit  the  introduction  of  foreign 
manufactures  free  of  duty,  or  to  grant  to  any  nation  a  monopoly  of 
her  market,  there  might  be  some  cause  of  fear — but,  as  she  is  bur-' 
ihened  with  a  heavy  debt,  and,  by  her  location,  completely  under  our 
control,  we  are  secure  at  least  of  a  fair  competition  in  her  market. 
In  the  expense  of  transportation,  we  have  largely  the  advantage  of 
other  nations  ;  and,  in  a  similarity  of  tastes  and  associations,  the 
strongest  promptings  to  commercial  intercourse.  To  show  the  prac- 
tical results  of  Annexation  upon  the  commerce  of  the  United  States, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  go  into  an  examination  of  the  present  trade  of 
Texas,  to  which  I  will  devote  my  next  letter. 


LETTER  XV 


March  15. 

Sir : — The  trade  of  Texas  was  exclusively  with  these  United  States, 
prior  to  1840.  Nearly  the  whole  was  with  the  port  of  New  Orleans. 
The  goods  shipped  were  such  as  are  usually  consumed  by  planters, 
with  the  exception  of  Tobacco,  and  a  few  other  articles,  intended  to 
be  smuggled  into  Mexico.  Prior  to  the  revolution,  nearly  the  whole 
business  of  the  country  was  transacted  on  the  Brasses  river.  In  the 
winter  of  1834-5,  one  small  vessel,  of  forty  tons,  did  a|l  the  trans- 
portation between  ^^\w  Orleans  and  Galveston  bay.  Galveston 
Island,  where  the  city  now  stands,  was  a  barren  sand-bank,  with  but 
one  hut  upon  it.  In  fact,  no  chart  of  the  bay  had  ever  been  made ; 
and  its  depth  of  water  was  only  inferred,  from  the  knowledge  that  the 
pirate,  Lafilte,  had  made  it  a  rendezvous  for  his  vessels.  The  coun- 
try was  poor — bnt  little  money  in  circulation — and  the  manufactured 


45 

articles  consumed  were  of  the  coarser  kinds.  The  immense  influx 
of  emigration,  subsequently  to  the  revolution,  and  the  establishment 
of  the  towns  of  Houston  and  Galveston,  created,  as  it  were  by  magic, 
a  large  commercial  trade.  The  attention  of  the  merchants  of  France 
and  England  was  directed  to  the  trade  of  Texas.  Several  English 
vessels  were  sent  to  Galveston  freighted  with  bulky  articles,  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  cargoes  of  cotton.  The  arrival  of  these  vessels 
was  hailed  as  an  era  in  the  history  of  the  new  republic.  The  specu- 
lation of  a  ^aw  merchants  was  heralded  as  a  national  demonstration — 
and  the  utmost  was  made  of  it,  by  those  then  interested  in  the  con- 
templated project  of  Annexation. 

The  result  of  these  voyages  was  disastrous  to  those  interested. 
The  articles  they  imported  could  not  be  sold,  in  the  quantities 
brought,  except  at  immense  sacrifices.  No  conveniences  were  to  be 
had,  for  screwing  or  packing  cotton,  and  no  facilities  for  loading; 
and,  from  the  total  want  of  any  banking  institutions,  the  factors  were 
compelled  to  purchase  their  articles  with  ready  money,  and  in  small 
parcels.  The  voyages,  in  every  instance  that  came  to  my  knowledge, 
were  ruinous.  Many  of  these  difficulties  were,  undoubtedly,  incident 
to  a  new  country,  and  may  be  obviated  as  the  country  advances — 
but  there  are  others  that  never  can  be  obviated,  and  which  will  effec- 
tually prevent  a  direct  trade  to  Europe.  I  will  state  them,  as  they 
occur  to  me.  The  first  and  most  important,  is  the  shallowness  of 
the  entrance,  the  dangerous  bar,  and  insecure  anchorage  of  Galveston 
bay.  No  vessel  of  over  three  hundred  tons,  however  favorably  built 
for  draught  of  water,  can  safely  enter  it.  It  is  well  known  that 
vessels  of  that  class  cannot  be  profitably  employed  in  the  transpor- 
tation of  cotton  to  Europe,  at  any  thing  like  the  present  rates  of 
freight.  If  a  bounty  was  to  be  granted,  by  the  British  Government, 
of  a  penny  per  pound  upon  Texas  cotton,  it  would  hardly  equalize 
the  difference  of  the  cost  of  transportation,  between  such  vessels  and 
our  large  freighting  ships.  The  bulk  of  all  the  cotton  lands  of  Texas 
is  south  of  Galveston.  In  fact  there  is  but  little  land  on  the  tributary 
waters  of  the  bay,  that  is  suitable  for  the  culture  of  cotton.  There 
being  no  port,  at  the  south,  that  will  admit  a  vessel  of  any  burthen, 
the  article  must  be  sent  to  a  port  of  lading  by  water.  If  so  sent,  the 
expense  would  be  less  to  send  it  direct  to  New  Orleans,  than  to 
Galveston. 

Another  objection  to  a  direct  trade  with  Europe,  is  that,  allowing 
the  entire  consumption  to  be  of  the  manufactures  of  Great  Britain,  it 
would  require  but  a  small  amount  of  tonnage  to  transport  the  supply, 
in  comparison  with  that  required  to  export  her  cotton.  Consequently 
as  the  ships  must  come  out  comparatively  empty,  the  expenses 
against  the  return  freights  would  be  greatly  increased.  But  to  un- 
derstand the  subject  clearly,  let  us  look  into  the  character  of  the 
consumers,  and  the  nature  of  the  manufactured  articles  consumed. 
Our  Southern  States  have  never  been  (in  comparison  with  their 
population)  consumers  of  manufactures,  to  an  extent  any  thing  like 


46 

those  of  the  North.  We  seldom  hear  of  importing  houses,  located  in 
slave  States  ;  and  never,  unless  they  are  in  cities  which  have  become, 
by  position,  depots  for  the  business  of  free  States.  The  slave  popu- 
lation are  seldom  consumers  of  foreign  fabrics ;  and  the  demand  for 
the  white  population,  in  slave  states,  is  less  than  for  the  same  number 
in  a  free  State.  Large  as  have  been  the  exports  of  our  Southern 
States,  they  have  been  compelled  to  depend  upon  the  North  for  their 
foreign  goods.  It  is  but  fair  to  presume  that  Texas,  as  a  slave  Slate, 
will  be  similarly  situated.  The  demand  for  the  finer  fabrics  will,  for 
many  years,  be  extremely  limited  in  Texas.  The  principal  articles 
consumed,  along  the  coast  of  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  will  be  negro 
clothing,  provisions,  tools,  cotton  bagging,  rope,  &c.  These  articles 
will  be  obtained  where  they  can  be  had  cheapest — and  there  can  be 
no  question  that  we  can  supply  them  cheaper,  and  of  a  better  quality, 
than  any  European  nation.  Placing  the  direct  trade  between  Texas, 
and  Europe  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances,  the  consumption 
of  European  manufactures  must  be,  for  a  long  time,  confined  to  the 
sea  coast.  The  rivers  that  penetrate  the  interior  are  tributary  to  the 
Mississippi — and  our  means  of  communication  must  forever  secure 
to  us  that  portion  of  her  trade.  In  regard  to  the  Santa  Fe  trade,  upon 
which  much  has  been  said,  I  will  make  but  one  remark — the  pos- 
session of  Texas  will  not  benefit  us  in  that  respect.  Although  the 
distance  from  Galveston  to  Santa  Fe  is  less  than  from  St.  Louis  to 
Santa  Fe,  yet  the  distance  from  St.  Louis  could  be  travelled  in  one 
half  the  time,  and  at  half  the  risk  and  expense.  A  railroad  may  be 
laid  from  St.  Louis,  but  never  can  be  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 
These  are  some  of  the  reasons  why  a  direct  trade  can  never  be 
wadvantageously  carried  on  between  Texas  and  Europe.  What  are 
Nwe,  then,  to  gain,  in  a  commercial  view,  by  Annexation  ?  Under 
any  circumstances  in  which  Texas  may  be  placed,  we  must  supply 
her  with  all  the  articles  that  she  requires,  which  we  can  sell  cheaper 
than  she  can  bring  them  across  the  Atlantic.  We  do  this,  and  no 
more,  in  our  own  slave  States.  If  South  Carolina  can  import  cotton 
bagging  cheaper  than  she  can  get  it  from  Kentucky,  she  will  do  so; 
and  it  will  be  so  with  Texas,  annexed  or  not  annexed.  The  idea 
that  Texas  will  give  a  monopoly  of  her  market  to  England,  or  any 
other  nation,  is  absurd.  Bad  as  her  population  has  been  represented 
to  be,  they  are  neither  fools  nor  madmen. 

With  these  few  desultory  remarks  upon  trade,  I  will  close  this  se- 
ries of  letters  on  Annexation.  I  believe  I  have  performed  all  I  prom- 
ised, in  my  introduction.  I  have  endeavored  to  condense,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  information  it  was  in  my  power  to  give,  upon  this  mo- 
mentous question,  and  to  avoid  exhibiting  any  thing  like  party  feeling. 
The  remarks  I  have  made  are  the  result  of  seven  years  connection 
with  the  trade  and  affairs  of  Texas,  and  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  her  population.  So  far  as  my  personal  feelings  are  connected 
with  Texas,  I  desire,  and  would  contribute  all  in  my  power,  to  ad- 
vance  her  prosperity.     As  an  independent  nation,  she  will,  at  no  dis- 


\ 


47 

jtant  day,  assume  a  high  rank.  As  a  part  of  our  Union,  she  will  sink 
/into  comparative  insignificance.  The  annexation  of  Texas,  if  con- 
(summated,  would,  personally,  berifefit  me  ;  for  I  am  largely  interested, 
I  both  in  her  lands  and  scrip.  Yet  I  cannot,  even  by  my  silence,  ap- 
!  prove  of  it ;  for  I  view  it  as  a  measure  disgraceful  to  my  country, 
and  sowing  the  seeds  of  civil  commotions  that  will  one  day  shake 
this  Union  to  its  cetitre.  These  letters  have  been  written  as  I  could 
find  leisure,  without  revision  or  study.  They  contain,  as  I  believe, 
an  unadorned  statement  of  facts.  To  what  extent  they  may  influence 
the  public  mind,  I  leave  to  time  to  determine.  If  they  can,  even  in 
the  smallest  degree,  awaken  my  fellow  chizens  to  the  national  peril 
involved  in  the  question,  I  shall  be  amply  compensated  for  my  labors. 
The  only  proof  that  I  can  offer  of  my  sincerity  in  the  opinions  I  have 
advanced  is,  that  I  have  labored  in  secret,  without  the  hope  of  fame 
or  reward — that  I  have  much  to  lose,  and  nothing  to  gain,  by  the 
course  I  have  pursued.  With  my  thanks  to  the  proprietors  of  the 
Atlas,  for  the  large  space  in  their  columns  which  they  have,  from 
time  to  time,  so  generously  allowed  me, 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  &c., 

LISLE. 


Of    TMP 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


THIS  BOOK  IS-DIJE  ON  THE-JiAST  DATE 
STAiafpt  D"  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE     OF     25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


JUN    2d  1933 

MAR  221937 


-«% 


ie 


'% 


DEC  6 


^  1^*"* 


1944 


RECEIVED 

OCT  21*68 -5  PM 

LOAN  DEPT. 

29  196863 


REC'D  Ud 


RECEIVED 

NOV  14 '68 -3  PM 

LOAN  DEPT. 


LD  21-50inl,'33 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED  | 

LOAN  DEPT. 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


^ecr 


Ut 


m± 


^^63^, 


S^ 


LD  62A-20m-9,'63 
{E709slO)9412A 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


